Build a useful investigation brief
Build the provenance table
List route, query, index, result type, visibility context, rank, label, destination, and selected action for representative rows. Include an intended and excluded index. Record the same phrase from two entry contexts to expose routing differences.
Trace the first scope change
Hold the phrase fixed while changing route or explicit scope, then hold scope fixed while changing result grouping. Compare included records, labels, and destinations. Record whether a result is wrong, merely unclear, or unavailable to the current context.
Write the index brief
State routing boundary, affected result types, access assumptions, and competing explanations. Recommend one scoped routing or grouping experiment with a pass condition. Do not infer a permission defect from a missing row until the index and route are identified.
What to carry forward
The investigation is complete when representative queries have reproducible routing and result provenance, or the first unknown boundary is explicit. Stop with one scope experiment. Keep visibility, relevance, and presentation as separate findings when their evidence differs.
Technical background: Digital.gov guidance.
Keep the decision with the work.
Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.
Create an account See the product workflow