Aglet

Investigate cross-project notification grouping with provenance

An investigation should show whether a grouped summary remains attributable when similar events span projects. Replay a shared actor and a shared event type, inspect group formation and destination, and compare with a single-project control. Ownership must remain legible before any action is attempted.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Build the project matrix

    List workspace, project, resource, actor, event type, group key, summary, child label, action, and destination for representative notifications. Include two projects with similar events and one intentionally separate case. Mark which project each action should reopen.

  2. Trace the context loss

    Hold event type fixed while changing project, then hold project fixed while changing resource. Compare group label, order, summary, permissions, and destination. Record whether the project disappears visually or only becomes unclear in the action.

  3. Write the boundary brief

    State the first cross-project merge, affected owners, and competing grouping keys. Recommend one project-aware key or summary experiment with a pass condition. Keep actor and time proximity separate from resource identity. Record the ownership cue beside every candidate group.

What to carry forward

The investigation is complete when cross-project grouping and destination behavior are reproducible, or the first missing identity is explicit. Stop with one bounded experiment. Do not combine records merely because an actor or event type is shared.

Technical background: Android developer documentation.

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