Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

Design partners and internal teams will report issues with dashboard narrative quality—wrong KPI definitions, misleading chart titles, broken queries for specific connector schemas—but there is no structured process to triage this feedback, decide what to fix, and ship corrections quickly. Without an operationalized feedback loop with explicit decision logs, reports will pile up in ad hoc channels, fixes will be slow or forgotten, and partners will lose confidence that their input matters. The gap between "feedback received" and "fix shipped" must be short and visible to retain design partner engagement.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around connector-specific dashboard packs and KPI narratives for Fivetran sources, 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 dashboard pack YAML, dbt/example assets, connector fixtures, and quickstart docs, 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 connector-specific dashboard packs and KPI narratives for Fivetran sources 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