Filter five fictional feedback receipts grouped into four distinct feedback items. Labels filters to F1/F2 with three related receipts; Status filters to F2/F3 with two. Their themed-item union has three IDs and F4 remains unclassified. A staged conflicting E2 mapping withholds current canonical aggregates instead of silently merging inconsistent text.
Declare what the dashboard counts
Thematic's internal-dashboard section describes feedback/theme, status, owner and follow-up fields. Here, item links and theme assignments are supplied explicitly so you can inspect the counting logic. Thematic: Internal Feedback Dashboard Snapshot
The sample contains five invented arrivals labeled E1 through E5. Item IDs F1 through F4 group explicitly linked feedback. It supplies no person-level identities, so neither set of IDs can establish how many people responded.
| Receipt | Supplied item link | Original content | Approved themes |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | F1 | Label the date field | Labels |
| E2 | F1; explicitly forwarded E1 | Same supplied comment as E1 | Same F1 mapping; no new item |
| E3 | F2 | Show date example and draft status | Labels, Status |
| E4 | F3 | Save draft before leaving | Status |
| E5 | F4 | Text not supplied | No approved theme yet |
The comments concern a fictional editor. They are feedback requests, not evidence that any product already supplies those features.
E2's link is provided by the sample. It is not inferred from a matching person, guessed identity, similar wording or a channel name. Preserve the original forwarding provenance with both receipt IDs.
Keep all five receipts and four item records
The receipt list retains E1 through E5. A canonical map links E1/E2 to F1, E3 to F2, E4 to F3 and E5 to F4.
F1 is one feedback item received twice. Removing E2 from the receipt list would lose how the item arrived; counting it as another canonical item would inflate the total.
| Original measure | Expected count | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt events | 5 | E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 |
| Canonical feedback items | 4 | F1, F2, F3, F4 |
| People | Unknown | No person-level identity supplied |
Four item IDs are not four distinct people. The same person could supply multiple items, and a forwarded item could cross channels; neither relationship is established here.
Check the mapping status before relying on its counts.
Count each theme by distinct contributing IDs
Theme assignments are supplied and approved within this fictional sample; the template does not infer them from text.
Labels contains F1 and F2, so its distinct-item count is 2. Status contains F2 and F3, also 2. The forwarded E2 does not increase Labels.
| Theme | Distinct items | Related receipt events |
|---|---|---|
| Labels | F1, F2: 2 | E1, E2, E3: 3 |
| Status | F2, F3: 2 | E3, E4: 2 |
An item can belong to both themes. F2 legitimately appears once in each theme's count, while its receipt E3 remains a single receipt.
Do not label the theme counts Votes or Customers requesting this. They count supplied item memberships, not unique people, verified demand, majority preference or automatically detected sentiment.
Show overlap instead of adding a false total
Labels 2 plus Status 2 gives four theme memberships. Their union contains only F1, F2, F3, three distinct themed items.
F4 has no approved theme and remains unclassified. Its missing text is not silently replaced with an invented comment or an automatic Status assignment.
| Original reconciliation | Expected value |
|---|---|
| Theme memberships | 4 |
| Distinct themed-item union | 3 |
| Unclassified items | 1: F4 |
| Canonical items | 3 themed + 1 unclassified = 4 |
The totals overlap: 2 + 2 counts four memberships, while F4 remains a separate unclassified item.
Inspect the IDs behind each filtered result. F2 appears under both Labels and Status, while F1 shows two related receipts. Those two relationships explain why the theme and receipt counts differ.
Hold a conflicting source for review
Load the E2 conflict scenario to compare E2's “Make the status badge easier to read” with F1's “Label the date field.” E2 still links to F1, so the different supplied text makes that mapping unresolved while all five receipts remain. Current canonical and theme totals are withheld. The previous approved counts of four items, two Labels items, and two Status items remain historical context while the conflict is unresolved. Restore approved sample returns the supplied mapping without deleting E2.
Action A1 remains a draft date-label proposal linked to F1/F2. Owner, decision, build reference and review evidence are blank or unknown; the sample supplies no evidence of a sent follow-up. A theme link is not implementation evidence. Keep actual decisions and evidence in the maintained workbook.
Copy a prompt for this example
Create one self-contained HTML feedback dashboard with embedded CSS and JavaScript. Use count summaries, theme-filter buttons, readable item cards, and a clearly separated mapping-conflict state. Label all data as fictional.
Supply five receipt events. E1 links to F1, “Label the date field,” under Labels. E2 explicitly forwards E1 and links to the same F1 with the same text. E3 links to F2, “Show date example and draft status,” under Labels and Status. E4 links to F3, “Save draft before leaving,” under Status. E5 links to F4 with text not supplied and no approved theme.
Preserve five receipts and four distinct items. Labels has F1 and F2 with three related receipts. Status has F2 and F3 with two related receipts. The theme memberships total four, but the themed union contains three items; F4 is unclassified. People remain unknown.
Provide All, Labels, Status, and Unclassified filters. Show contributing item and receipt IDs, distinct-item count, and related-receipt count.
Add a conflict button that changes E2 to “Make the status badge easier to read” while retaining its F1 link. Display that text beside F1's original “Label the date field.” Keep five raw receipts, withhold current item and theme aggregates, and show the previous approved counts as historical. Restore approved sample resets the mapping.
Show a draft date-label action A1 linked to F1 and F2 without claiming an owner, decision, implementation, or completed follow-up. Keep the layout readable on small screens. Return only the complete HTML file.
For a feedback triage review, NOS can display this prepared HTML mapping. Filter Labels, inspect F1’s two receipts and F2’s overlap, then resolve any source conflict before assigning real work from your feedback records.