Inspect the request
Start with the original task text and the fields the requester supplied. Identify missing context before interpreting urgency or deciding which team should own the work.
Auto-Triage
A clearer backlog, before planning begins.
Turn incoming work into reviewed priorities, suggested owners and useful labels, with the evidence attached.
ACDFMC+1
Illustrative workspace · interactive demonstration
Start with a suggestion
Review labels alongside the original request and confidence.
ENG-284Linked context
Route by clear rules
Combine model suggestions with team-owned routing conditions.
Review the range
Keep the review step
Approve uncertain or sensitive changes before they run.
Ready for reviewHuman approval
A practical workflow
Build a review queue your team can trust.
Incoming work needs context, ownership and a clear route. A suggestion should make that review easier to carry out.
Set the routing conditions
Choose the classification threshold and the team-specific conditions in the workflow. The demonstration lets you edit the confidence setting and see it reflected in the decision node.
Review the exceptions
Hold uncertain classifications for a person. Use a clear fallback owner so unusual requests do not disappear between an automated suggestion and the next planning meeting.
A connected working example
A request becomes a visible decision.
A new task enters a workflow, receives a proposed classification and reaches a condition. A confident match can be considered for routing; an uncertain result needs review with the original request attached.
Connect triage to the backlog without confusing a category with a commitment. Priority, scope and ownership still need the context of current capacity and the team’s release goals.
ACDFMC+1
Illustrative workspace · interactive demonstration
Inside the approach
How the model works.
A classifier suggests task category and priority from available text and metadata. Confidence is a model estimate, not an accuracy claim. Low-confidence results are held for human review.
Methodology and evaluation01Incoming task
02Classification
03Owner review
Before you move forward
Agree on the routing policy before using it.
| Review | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Categories | Define labels around the work the team actually receives. Ambiguous labels make both classification and manual review harder. |
| Threshold | Treat confidence as a model estimate. Choose review thresholds using relevant examples and the cost of a wrong route. |
| Fallback | Give unclassified work a visible queue and an accountable reviewer. |
| Consequences | Separate a suggested label from a change that affects ownership, urgency or a delivery promise. |
Questions & answers
A few useful answers.
Does confidence mean the label is correct?
No. Confidence summarizes the classifier’s estimate under its inputs and assumptions. A confident result can still be wrong, especially when the request differs from familiar examples.
Can I change the conditions?
In the demonstration, select the classification node and change its confidence setting. Production conditions and available actions are agreed during workflow setup.
What happens to uncertain requests?
A responsible routing policy keeps them in a review queue. Agree on the fallback owner and the information they need before enabling consequential actions.
Ship what you promised.
Bring the plan, the work and the next decision together.