Aglet

Prioritize report freshness issues by decision timing

Freshness issues deserve different treatment when a report informs a time-bound decision than when it supports historical exploration. Prioritization should weigh the decision window and clarity of the as-of boundary, using observed report dependencies rather than invented refresh rates or assumed audience size.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Name the decision window

    Record the decision, its cutoff, and the latest data boundary it requires. Separate a missed deadline from a general desire for lower latency. Note whether a user can safely defer action while the report context is clarified.

  2. Map dependent surfaces

    List cards, tables, exports, alerts, and recurring review documents that reuse the result or its freshness statement. Mark surfaces with no visible boundary separately from those that show an explicit as-of time, because ambiguity increases interpretation risk.

  3. Select the queue

    Queue an urgent evidence review when a decision window is open and the displayed boundary cannot be trusted. Queue a context or documentation repair when the result is valid but its age is hidden. Preserve an owner for source and report boundaries.

What to carry forward

Prioritize the case when a time-sensitive decision relies on a result whose data boundary is missing or plausibly behind the stated need. If the boundary is explicit and the decision can wait, queue context repair with a lower urgency and keep the evidence attached.

Technical background: Metabase 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