Export status and retries
Rows 1, 2, 8, 13, 18, 24, 28
Inspect timing and failure logs first. Feedback does not prove the system is generally slow; row 28 offers a counterexample.
Chinese-speaking small teams · Defined scope, human-reviewed delivery
Customer Feedback Evidence Sprint
Before your next product meeting, organize customer feedback into themes, traceable evidence and proposed actions.
For small Chinese-speaking product or service teams with existing feedback and one clear decision question. AI assists drafting; a human checks each item, and the client confirms priorities.
We confirm the scope before preparing a proposal. Submitting a request does not incur a fee.
One question, one reviewable deliverable
Input
One product or business, one decision question, and 30–100 authorized feedback items totaling no more than 50,000 characters. We agree a secure handoff after confirming scope.
Deliverables
A one-page summary, an evidence matrix with up to 8 themes, up to 5 proposed actions, limitations and open questions; an editable report and JSON.
Timing and communication
Delivery within 7 days after complete inputs, scope and payment terms are confirmed. Includes one 45-minute briefing, one consolidated revision, and up to 30 minutes of in-scope questions within 7 days of delivery.
Excludes system implementation, third-party account connections, data scraping, ongoing monitoring, compliance certification, decisions on your behalf, or guaranteed business results. Sample counts cannot establish market proportions or unique customer counts.
Synthetic sample · Not a real customer case
Demo: Which feedback questions should we verify before the next release?
30 entirely synthetic feedback items simulate a reporting product. This demonstrates evidence structure only, with no claims about real customers, measured performance, time savings or business results.
Department sharing boundaries
Rows 3, 4, 11, 14, 19, 25
Confirm recipients and access boundaries. These comments do not establish an unauthorized-access vulnerability.
First import guidance
Rows 5, 6, 10, 15, 20, 26, 29
Verify formats and error locations. Row 29 suggests experienced users may not need the same guidance.
Weekly report decisions
Rows 7, 12, 16, 21, 27, 30
Confirm whether meetings need change summaries or details; word frequency alone cannot set priorities.
Rows 9 and 22 form another theme about plan seat limits. Row 17 on offline access and row 23 on notification noise are individual questions to verify. A recurring theme requires at least two related supporting items.
Human review and data boundaries
Check citations and meaning item by item, including omissions, counterexamples, duplicates and unsupported inferences. Existing row numbers, valid structure and passing tests do not prove factual accuracy. Client data is not made public, used for training or used in public examples by default.
The feedback workbench saves structured results, not raw inputs in that run record; results may still contain sensitive information. Users can delete individual run records, but provider processing and retention in logs or backups still need confirmation. Real data is processed only in environments approved by both parties, with retention and deletion rules documented in scope.
View delivery candidates and evidence status
Workbench voice-of-customer.v1: source checked on 2026-10-08 at baseline 626ced9. This is a local code review; quality acceptance with real models is not complete. Playground runs only its supported tools and models, not every catalog tool.
Model candidate: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash; API alias: deepseek-flash. Official API documentation Checked on 2026-10-08 from documentation; no real model was called for this review. Each task must record the model actually returned, usage and costs.
Request a scope review
First we assess whether a proposal is appropriate. Do not upload raw customer feedback or sensitive files with this initial request.
If the form is unavailable or you need to check a receipt: okcodex8@gmail.com. Send only a task overview.