Workflow Feedback Search Log Template

Write the question before choosing keywords. 'Find feedback about onboarding' is broad. 'What prevents new administrators from importing a first usable dataset?' gives you a role, a task, and a boundary. Record a date window that matches the decision, and note whether older unresolved reports should be included separately.

List the language a customer might use rather than relying on your internal workflow name. For onboarding import, try setup, upload, CSV, connection, mapping, first report, and error wording found in a known report. Search terms separately when the source does not support combined queries. Do not paste Boolean syntax into a simple search field and assume it works.

Choose one or two known relevant records as a retrieval check. A search that misses them needs investigation: the wording, date filter, access permissions, or searchable fields may differ from your assumptions. Finding the checks demonstrates that those records are retrievable; it does not prove that every relevant report was found.

Record each source's actual search scope. Some systems search message text; others search only titles. An inaccessible interview folder is missing coverage, not a source with zero matching feedback. Keep raw result counts separate from reviewed matches, since broad terms such as 'setup' can retrieve unrelated work.

Give each included observation a stable evidence ID and retain its source reference. If one customer describes two obstacles, create two observations linked to the same source. If an email and support ticket repeat the same incident, link both to one observation. Count distinct accounts separately from messages and observations; do not add source totals together as customer demand.

Before sharing a summary, check a few included and excluded results against the original wording. Record why a borderline result belongs or does not belong. If the search misses a known report, preserve that gap and revise the terms or scope before presenting the collection as ready for analysis.

This fictional example concerns a reporting product, not a measured Feedbackly customer result. The search owner looks for first-import friction among new administrators. A board search for 'onboarding' misses a known request titled 'CSV dates rejected'. Searching 'CSV' and 'date' separately retrieves it. The missed first query reveals a vocabulary gap, not an absence of onboarding feedback.

Across the reviewed board and support evidence, six relevant records describe four incidents from three accounts. Two records repeat one incident and another two repeat a different incident. One account has two separate incidents. Keep those units visible: six records, four incidents, three accounts. An interview folder remains unavailable, so the owner cannot claim coverage of all customer evidence.

The next action is to review the date-format problems and permission dependency separately. The log does not show how common either problem is among all new customers, and it does not establish which feature should ship. Move the included evidence IDs into analysis, retain the coverage gap, and ask the folder owner for access through the normal internal process.