Build a useful investigation brief
Map queue inflow and aging
Review item types, arrival timing, duplicate requests, waiting states, and decision durations without relying on a single count. Identify which work consumes attention and where an item waits for information rather than review.
Test the expertise boundary
Compare decisions that truly need the reviewer with decisions that could be answered by a bounded rubric or qualified peer. Record examples and exceptions, and avoid assuming delegation is safe without checking authority.
Write the bottleneck brief
State the evidence-backed constraint, affected decisions, candidate redistribution, and remaining capacity or authority risk. Recommend a small experiment such as a narrower intake contract or review window with a measurable outcome. Tie the proposed experiment to a queue result and a decision-quality check.
What to carry forward
A useful brief identifies the dominant source of overload, the decision boundary that requires scarce expertise, and one bounded change to test. Stop when the queue bottleneck is actionable; preserve unresolved authority questions for the responsible decision owner. Keep authority limits explicit when the bottleneck cannot be solved by redistribution alone.
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