Identify the relevant question
Locate the question to which the response relates so its original meaning is preserved.
Reread the response, the score given, and the available comment before deciding what to do. An unusual response may deserve a check, but it should not automatically lead to a conclusion about the customer.
A response collected through a survey should be reread within the exact framework of the relevant question and scale. When an applicable rule, category, or segment is actually displayed or documented in the flow, it may guide the review. The response format, its value, any comment, the date, and the available context may all contribute to the review. None of these elements determines the assessment on its own. A response to review only indicates that a separate human check may be useful. The possible creation of a case and assignment of a priority are later steps.
Before interpreting feedback, check the elements that define the question and what is actually visible in the flow.
Locate the question to which the response relates so its original meaning is preserved.
Check whether it is a choice, a value on a scale, short text, or a comment, depending on the available formats.
Record the choice, value, or text actually available in the interface. The form and level of detail may vary by flow.
When multiple languages are used, check the visible language and the meaning of the corresponding question.
Review only the reference points actually displayed or documented for the relevant question. Their presence and configuration options may vary.
A rule, category, or segment may help structure the reading when available.
Limit: this reference point proves neither the cause of a situation, its urgency, nor the customer’s future behaviour.
When an NPS question and its categories are actually used, the promoter, passive, and detractor segments must be interpreted only within that framework.
Limit: they are not universal thresholds for other questions or scales.
Use the information actually available without assuming that a history, service record, or automated grouping is always present.
This flow keeps the levels separate and presents each step as a human review, not a universal automatic process.
The available response to the relevant question is reviewed.
Limit: a response does not prove an objective cause on its own.
The question, response format, and any scale are identified.
Limit: interpreting a value without its original framework may lead to an incorrect conclusion.
The reference point that actually applies to this question is reviewed when it exists.
Limit: a rule, category, or segment guides the reading without predicting future behaviour.
The team rereads the available information related to the question, booking, appointment, or service, depending on the flow.
Limit: the visible context may be incomplete.
The team determines whether a separate human check is useful at this stage.
Limit: this decision does not automatically create a case, priority, offer, or corrective action.
Use the related guides to keep assessment, case creation, priority, and interpretation as distinct steps.
Learn about the documented functions for preparing surveys, collecting responses, and reviewing available feedback.
View the pageLearn how to organize the handling order when separate follow-up has been considered.
Read the articleLearn the documented steps for organizing follow-up from a reviewed response.
Read the articleReview the scope, number of responses, and context before making an observation.
Read the articleSpecify the page and flow, the question and response format, the relevant choice, value, or comment without unnecessary personal data, the visible rule, category, or segment when one exists, the available context, the exact result or message observed, approximate date and time, and a sanitized screenshot if useful. Never send a password, authentication code, key, token, technical secret, or unnecessary personal information.