Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

When design partners report execution adapter issues — query failures on specific databases, unexpected result shapes, performance problems — there is no structured process to capture, triage, and resolve them with tracked decisions. Feedback arrives through ad-hoc channels, fix decisions are made without recorded rationale, and partners have no visibility into whether their issue is acknowledged, in progress, or deprioritized. This erodes partner trust and risks accumulating unresolved adapter bugs that block adoption.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around the YAML contract, compiler/normalizer, execution adapters, and release/versioning, 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/core/, schema/compiled types, docs, and core test suites, 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 the YAML contract, compiler/normalizer, execution adapters, and release/versioning 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