Aglet

Investigate upload-to-validation delay with state timelines

Investigation should follow one file across the handoff from accepted bytes to validation result. Capture timestamps and state reads instead of measuring only elapsed wall time, because a long interval may be expected while an absent transition can still be the defect.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Choose a representative file

    Use a valid file, a file expected to be rejected, and a file that takes a longer validation path when available. Record identity, size, upload response, and expected validation outcome before starting each trace.

  2. Build the state timeline

    Record upload accepted, validation queued or started, intermediate progress if exposed, accepted or rejected result, and every visible action. Mark unknown transitions explicitly and compare the first visible ready signal with the actual validation boundary.

  3. Separate delay from omission

    Compare the timeline with the workflow contract and identify the earliest missing, late, or contradictory state. Explain whether the evidence supports a processing delay, a status read gap, or a race; leave implementation cause open if traces do not distinguish them.

What to carry forward

The investigation is sufficient when a reviewer can follow the file identity from transfer response to validation result and identify the first missing or misleading transition. If timestamps are incomplete, report the observable gap and avoid converting an unknown wait into a root-cause claim.

Technical background: W3C guidance.

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