Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

As design partners begin using the context catalog, their feedback on metadata quality, missing enrichment, and usability issues needs a structured path from report to resolution. Currently there is no operational feedback loop — no intake process, no decision log for how feedback is triaged, and no mechanism to track whether reported issues were fixed or intentionally deferred. Without this, partner feedback will be lost or addressed inconsistently, damaging the design partnership relationship and slowing iteration.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around context schema/catalog contracts and Nimble enrichment flows across product surfaces, but the backlog cannot absorb that input well if it arrives through ad hoc conversations and scattered notes.
• This task should define how feedback is captured, normalized, prioritized, and routed so recurring pain points become actionable delivery signals instead of ambient noise.
• Expected touchpoints include dataface/ai/, context-contract docs, eval wiring, and inspect-derived artifacts, task/backlog surfaces, and whatever telemetry or review artifacts are needed to separate one-off requests from real patterns.

Possible Solutions

• A - Keep collecting feedback informally in chat and meetings: low setup cost, but it loses history and makes prioritization inconsistent.
• B - Recommended: establish a lightweight but explicit feedback loop: define intake, categorization, ownership, review cadence, and how accepted items turn into tracked work.
• C - Add a heavy formal program process immediately: more structure, but likely too slow and bureaucratic for the current stage.

Plan

1. Inventory the current feedback sources for context schema/catalog contracts and Nimble enrichment flows across product surfaces and identify where signal is being lost or duplicated today.
2. Define a simple intake and review loop with owners, categorization rules, prioritization criteria, and a recurring decision cadence.
3. Connect that loop to concrete backlog/task updates, escalation paths, and summary artifacts so design-partner issues stay visible.
4. Pilot the loop with a small set of recent feedback items and refine the process before treating it as the default operating path.

Implementation Progress

Review Feedback

• [ ] Review cleared