Aglet

Investigate whether closed feedback is actually resolved

Investigation should treat closure as a hypothesis to test. Reconstruct the original customer path, examine what changed, and probe scope boundaries so the team can distinguish a resolved issue, a partial repair, and an unrelated improvement. Treat the prior closure as a claim to test, especially where only a related change was verified.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Recreate the original condition

    Use the original role, data state, release, route, and timing where available. Record assumptions and compare expected versus observed behavior. If the path cannot be reconstructed, state the exact evidence limit.

  2. Compare change to outcome

    Trace the shipped change or workaround to the behavior it can affect, then test the customer outcome directly. Look for branches, permissions, integrations, or timing paths the change did not touch.

  3. Search for residual scope

    Review later reports, adjacent contexts, and reopen events for signs of partial recovery or a changed symptom. Write a scoped brief with confirmed resolution, unresolved branches, and the smallest next experiment.

What to carry forward

A useful brief proves current recovery for the original condition or documents a partial result with remaining scope. Stop when further probing no longer changes the closure hypothesis; reopen the unresolved branch instead of preserving a convenient but unsupported closed state.

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