Aglet

Prioritize severe feedback from a small customer cohort

A queue that ranks only by reach will bury severe pain experienced by a small cohort. Prioritization should make harm, reversibility, cohort confidence, and possible expansion visible, then choose an action proportionate to risk without pretending the issue affects everyone.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Separate reach from severity

    Record distinct affected accounts and the confidence of that count alongside consequence, recurrence, workaround cost, and reversibility. Keep a small cohort visible as a fact rather than substituting a broad estimate for missing evidence.

  2. Assess urgency and containment

    Ask whether the harm can recur, worsen, or become irreversible before a permanent fix. Compare a bounded containment step, investigation, and scheduled repair. State what each option protects and what uncertainty it leaves.

  3. Set the priority rationale

    Choose the queue position and owner based on severe consequence and plausible exposure, then define an evidence trigger for expanding or narrowing scope. Include the affected cohort so later reviewers do not mistake urgency for breadth.

What to carry forward

The output is a priority decision that preserves limited reach while explaining why severe harm, reversibility, or exposure uncertainty justifies its position. Stop when an owner and next action exist; if spread is unclear, prioritize bounded exposure discovery with the urgent path.

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