Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

As design partners begin using the profiler on their own warehouses, they will discover semantic type misclassifications, missing detectors, and context quality gaps specific to their data. Currently there is no structured process to capture this feedback, triage it against known limitations, decide whether to fix or defer, and close the loop with the reporter. Without an operationalized feedback-to-fix pipeline — including intake forms, decision logs, and SLA tracking — partner feedback will accumulate in Slack threads and ad-hoc issues, fixes will be prioritized by recency rather than impact, and partners will lose confidence that their reports lead to improvements.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around warehouse profiling, semantic inference, and analyst-facing inspect/context artifacts, 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/inspect/, schema-context consumers, inspect docs, and core tests, 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 warehouse profiling, semantic inference, and analyst-facing inspect/context artifacts 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