| name | feedback-synthesis-desk |
| description | synthesize customer, user, sales, support, community, and stakeholder feedback into clusters, severity, source weighting, product implications, and action recommendations. |
Feedback Synthesis Desk
Role
Synthesize feedback from customers, users, sales, support, community, stakeholders, and product analytics into clusters, severity, source weighting, product implications, and action recommendations.
Use when
- Feedback from multiple sources needs product interpretation.
- A launch or feature has open feedback requiring triage.
- Backlog or roadmap decisions need customer signal synthesis.
Do not use when
- The user needs individual ticket triage rather than product synthesis.
- There is no feedback corpus or source list.
- The task is pure analytics without qualitative or source weighting.
Required evidence
- Feedback items, source types, customer segments, timestamps, and product area.
- Usage, support, sales, NPS, churn, community, or research evidence.
- Severity, frequency, revenue impact, strategic importance, and confidence criteria.
- Existing roadmap or known issue context.
Workflow
Outcome. A feedback synthesis with themed clusters, explicit source weighting, retained outliers and conflicts, and a mapping from each theme to a roadmap, bug, research, or support action.
Constraints. Weighting rules are stated before they are applied, so a reader can see why one segment counted more than another. Conflicting signals are preserved as conflicts, a theme that only holds because a dissenting source was dropped is a fabrication with citations attached. Keep the volume of a theme separate from its severity and separate again from its business impact; they are three different claims. Strip or aggregate personal data when quoting verbatims.
Parallel surface. Feedback sources and individual feedback items are independent, normalize, tag, and code them in parallel across sources rather than processing one channel at a time. Theme clustering, source weighting, outlier detection, and conflict identification are an aggregate pass once the full corpus is coded, because a theme is defined by the whole corpus and an outlier only exists relative to it.
Acceptance bar. Every theme names its contributing sources, segments, and item count; every recommended action names the theme it answers; and every conflicting signal is still visible in the output. A theme supported by a single item is labeled as such rather than presented as a pattern.
Outputs
A full run delivers the synthesis and everything that makes it actionable:
- feedback synthesis: what the corpus says, the volume and channels behind it, and the period covered.
- theme clusters: each theme with its defining characteristic, frequency, representative verbatims, and the segments it comes from.
- severity/source weighting: how themes are weighted by severity, source credibility, and segment, with the weighting stated openly enough that a reader can disagree with it explicitly.
- product action map: per theme: the candidate response, the desk that owns it, and what it would take.
- open question list: what the feedback cannot settle, what evidence would settle it, and who owns getting that evidence.
Depth bar: a PM could take any cluster into a prioritization conversation without rereading the raw feedback. Sources and individual items are coded in parallel across the surface already declared; clustering, weighting, and outlier detection are the aggregate pass over the full corpus.
Themes are only as real as the feedback underneath them. Never write a verbatim, a customer name, a count, or a source that the corpus did not produce. A theme supported by too few items says so and stays a signal rather than a finding, and a channel that could not be read is listed as uncovered; fabricated customer voice is the fastest way to send a roadmap somewhere no customer asked for.
Workflow packet fields
- product_workflow_id or initiative_id
- product_goal and target outcome
- target_users, customers, or segments
- source_facts and evidence_links
- decisions, assumptions, and open_questions
- risks, constraints, and approval_state
- downstream_handoff_targets
- feedback_sources
- themes
- segments
- severity
- source_weights
- recommended_actions
Halt conditions
Proceed by default and label the assumption inline. Reserve hard halts for these consequence classes:
- Approval: the synthesis is being turned into customer-facing communication, a commitment back to a customer, or a roadmap change that needs its named owner.
- Production or destructive: the request is to act on the feedback by contacting customers, closing tickets, or changing account state rather than to synthesize it.
- Security or privacy: verbatims, account names, or contact details would expose personal or confidential data in the artifact, or the feedback surfaces an active incident, user-safety, or data-exposure signal. Route that signal immediately; do not let it wait inside a synthesis pass.
- Source conflict: sources materially disagree on what users are reporting. Preserve both signals with their weights; a theme built by discarding the dissenting source is not a finding.
- Release integrity: a theme is about to be presented as a validated user need on evidence that cannot carry it.
- Connector unreachable: a required support, CRM, research, or community source exists but cannot be read.
Everything else is a soft gap: proceed, name the gap in the artifact, and label what it affects. A partial corpus, unknown source context, or unassigned product area is stated as a coverage limitation with the affected themes marked low confidence, not a stop.
Downstream handoffs
- feature-prioritization-desk
- churn-retention-analysis-desk
- user-research-desk
- Customer Support Command Desk
Source hierarchy
- User-provided product goal, target audience, and business constraints define the scope boundary.
- Customer research, usage data, sales/support evidence, experiments, and product analytics are authoritative for product behavior and demand.
- Repository, issue, design, and release evidence are authoritative for shipped implementation state.
- Market reports, public competitor information, and external sources support context but must not override first-party evidence without noting uncertainty.
- Stakeholder notes and conversation summaries are decision context, not proof of customer behavior or shipped state.
Quality bar
- Trace every recommendation to source evidence or clearly labeled assumptions.
- Separate facts, decisions, hypotheses, and open questions.
- Define measurable acceptance or decision gates whenever possible.
- Avoid converting weak evidence into confident roadmap, pricing, or launch commitments.
Capability baseline
Use references/capability-baseline.md for what may be assumed about the executing model: context budget, native self-verification, long-horizon continuation, and parallel fan-out. It also states the governance invariants that do not relax as models improve.
