Keep the two accounts visible
C-104 writes, “The appointment changed twice and I still do not know the new time.” The service log says “schedule updated.” Those records can both be accurate: the internal system changed while the customer remained uncertain.
The useful issue is scheduling communication that needs confirmation. Do not infer that the employee acted improperly or that the customer intends to cancel. Record the original comment, relevant service note and question to resolve.
Define categories that lead somewhere
Use issue types that help the team select a responsible owner and response. Allow several categories when needed. A comment may mention usability and communication; forcing one label can hide part of the problem.
Define severity and escalation with the responsible service team. Test ambiguous and incomplete comments. A model’s confident tone is not evidence that its severity judgment is correct.
If configured AI prepares tags or suggested summaries on arrival, check quotations, context and omitted qualifications. Keep the original source and let reviewers correct the interpretation. Do not automatically treat silence about a topic as a positive result.
Record the response, not just the tag
Assign a person and a next step: confirm the appointment with C-104 and record the reply. A tagged issue without an owner is still unfinished work.
Distinguish internal task closure from customer-confirmed resolution. If the team sent a message but has no reply, record that state accurately. Do not label it resolved simply to clear a queue.
Review repeated issues to improve the collection or service process. A consistent pattern may justify investigation, while one ambiguous comment remains a specific question. The benefit is a usable connection between feedback and action rather than a collection of disconnected sentiment charts.
Work through the Clearway example
This is a fictional teaching example. Adapt the fields and rules to the question your own workflow needs to answer.
| Element | C-104 example | Review rule |
|---|---|---|
| Customer statement | New appointment time is unclear | Keep the original wording |
| Service record | Schedule updated | Does not establish customer confirmation |
| Interpretation | Scheduling communication may be incomplete | Verify before concluding |
| Action | Owner confirms the time | Record the customer’s response |
Build this part of your plan in more detail
These lessons address the next practical questions in this module. Choose the detail your workflow needs, then return to complete the exercise.
- How to Clean Open-Ended Survey Responses Without Losing Meaning
Keep response status separate from feedback themes.
- How to Analyze Open-Ended Survey Responses
Build and review a codebook, then report themes with a clear denominator.
More practical questions in this module (1)
- How to Analyze Sentiment in Survey Responses
Separate sentiment, issue, consequence and follow-up before drawing a conclusion.
Add this part to your plan
On workbook page 3, create an issue record from the two accounts. Specify evidence, category, uncertainty, owner and next action.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Compare with a suggested answer
The record preserves both sources, requests confirmation and avoids inventing intent to cancel. The owner records whether the customer confirms the new arrangement.
Self-check: Could another reviewer see why this action was chosen?
Questions you may have
Is a negative comment a churn prediction?
No. It is evidence of the reported experience and may justify follow-up; prediction requires a separate validated approach.
Can AI close the issue?
Configured automation may assist a workflow, but closure should follow the organization’s defined evidence and authority rules.
Apply the method to your work
Use the five-part plan to assess the sources, analysis and permissions your team needs. The solution page shows where a connected platform can support that workflow.
Explore the customer experience solution →