In 30 seconds

The people using a workflow see its mistakes first. Give them an easy way to flag problems, make sure that feedback reaches the owner, and show that it leads to changes. Feedback nobody acts on quietly stops coming.

Why this comes up

Your monitoring and test set catch a lot, but the users catch things you did not think to measure: an answer that was technically correct but unhelpful, a tone that was wrong, a case the workflow handles badly. That knowledge is valuable, and it evaporates if there is no easy channel for it.

Make feedback effortless

The easier it is to give feedback, the more you will get. Attach it to the moment of use:

  • A simple way to flag a specific result as wrong or unhelpful, right where it appears.
  • A quick, optional note on what was wrong, rather than a long form.
  • The context captured automatically, the case, the input, the output, so the person does not have to describe it.

A one-click flag with the case attached is worth more than a general feedback survey nobody fills in.

Route it to someone who acts

Feedback has to reach the workflow owner, not disappear into a shared mailbox. Connect it to your failed-case review so flagged results are examined for patterns and fed into the test set.

Close the loop

The fastest way to kill feedback is to ignore it. When someone reports a problem and later sees it fixed, they keep reporting. When nothing happens, they stop, and you lose your best early-warning system. Tell people what changed as a result of what they raised. This also strengthens adoption. See how to introduce an AI workflow to a team.

A small example

A team added a simple "this answer was wrong" button to their assistant, capturing the question and answer. Reports went straight to the owner's weekly review. Because reported issues were fixed and the reporters were told, staff kept flagging problems, and the assistant improved steadily on exactly the cases that mattered to real users.

What this does not solve

User feedback surfaces problems you would otherwise miss; it is not a complete quality system, and it is biased toward what users happen to notice. Combine it with monitoring, sampling and your test set, so quiet failures that users do not flag are still caught.

Good enough to move on when

  • Users can flag a bad result easily, with context captured.
  • Feedback reaches the workflow owner reliably.
  • Flagged cases feed the failed-case review and test set.
  • People are told what changed as a result of their feedback.