The queue looks different to each person

Tap Tap Go’s intended scoring assistance should support a team’s work, but colleagues may reasonably disagree about which enquiries deserve attention. One person may prioritise a clear implementation need while another values a strategic relationship. Before treating the assistant’s order as neutral, define the purpose of the review. Sales readiness, partnership relevance and support urgency are different questions, and one undifferentiated score can blur them.

Calibrate around actual requests

Choose a small set of appropriately accessible enquiries and ask reviewers to explain their proposed next action. Compare the reasoning, not only the ranking. Identify missing context and decide which criteria belong in the brief supplied to the assistant. Keep individual judgments reviewable and avoid turning a score into a statement about someone’s personal worth. Revisit the criteria when the product or team responsibility changes, and confirm which customisation or review functions are actually available in the current workflow.

Imagine this

Hypothetical example

A team disagrees about a partnership enquiry ranked below a purchase request. They realise the queue mixes two business purposes. The team separates the review questions and assigns appropriate owners, using the assistant to organise information rather than forcing every relationship into one sales-priority scale.

Make it practical.

Use this checklist as you read. Checks are not stored.

References & further reading

Tap Tap Go Journal: product context and editorial approach ↗

Published by Tap Tap Go. Product availability and eligibility vary by programme and market. About our stories.