Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

Design partners provide feedback on dashboard templates and the quality review process, but there is no structured mechanism to capture that feedback, route it to the right owner, or track whether fixes land. Feedback gets lost in Slack threads or verbal conversations, the same issues recur across partners, and there is no decision log explaining why the rubric was adjusted or why certain feedback was deferred. This makes it impossible to demonstrate that the review process is actually improving in response to real usage.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around repeatable production, review, and publishing of quickstarts and example dashboards, 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 examples/, review/publishing docs, production-line scripts, and dashboard content fixtures, 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 repeatable production, review, and publishing of quickstarts and example dashboards 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