Main site

Product AI agent · Feedback triage

Feedback-Classification AI Agent

Label every verbatim as a decision, not a filter: the classification it enters, a reportability flag raised independently of it, and the clock it starts, held for the named reviewer who confirms it.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Named reviewer
Flag not filter
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Labels the item, does not close the clock

In

  1. 01

    A verbatim arrives, and the words the reporter used are kept beside the label that follows.

  2. 02

    A label is applied, and a reportability flag is raised apart from it, on rules of its own.

Reason

  1. 03

    A verbatim reads like a safety event, and 21 CFR 803.17(a)(2) makes that judgement a process.

  2. 04

    A duplicate is proposed, and merging is treated as a claim about count, not as tidying up.

  3. 05

    A cluster is merged, and the earliest member timestamp is carried forward as the clock start.

Decide

  1. 06

    A report is unverified, and it stays in the population — 49 CFR 579.4(c) is explicit.

  2. 07

    A label is written, and the input, the model version, the threshold and the reason are kept.

Out

  1. 08

    An item fits no class, and it is raised as unclassified rather than pressed into the nearest one.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

Intake, labelling, flagging and routing belong to the agent. The reportability determination belongs to a named reviewer, who makes it on the record and owns it.

Example workflow

One verbatim, intake to determination

  1. 1Feedback item receivedSupport ticket, app-store review, sales note, survey verbatim or field report
  2. 2Product and market resolvedWhich product it names, which market the reporter sits in, the channel it came on and when
  3. 3Label and flag proposedThe primary class, the reportability flag, the clock start and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedTaxonomy checks, duplicate-merge checks, flag-suppression checks and confidence

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is reported at any of them — the agent is labelling, and the reviewer lane opens at the reportability gate.

5DecisionSplits at the reportability gate
Routine class, no flag

Goes to the named reviewer to confirm.

Any flag raised

Adds a safety-lead read first.

Reviewer decision

The item is held with its verbatim, its flag, its clock start and the confidence.

Confirm · Reclassify · Send to safety review

Confirmed — by the named reviewer

  1. 6Ticketing and complaint records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedLabel correctness, missed flags, reviewer overrides and what review found

Overrides

A label found wrong later is reopened, re-timed and counted.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Deciding whether an event is reportable.
    • Filing a report with any regulator.
    • Closing a flagged item without a review.
    • Collapsing a cluster into one reportable event.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Label the item and record why that label was given.
    • ✓Raise the reportability flag on rules of its own, apart from the class.
    • ✓Carry the earliest member timestamp forward as the clock start.
    • ✓Hold a flagged item for the named reviewer to decide.

    No report leaves the company except by a named reviewer, inside the agreed boundaries.

    • Judging whether a complaint concerns your product.
    • Telling a regulator an event was not reportable.
    • Setting the confidence threshold for a flag.
  • Changes to the taxonomy, the flags or the routing.

Example output

One feedback item, annotated

An FDA warning letter of 22 November 2024 found complaints unevaluated because the firm had classified the server as not a medical device; here is one item.

Classification output · single item

Illustrative example
Channel
App-store review, consumer market
Verbatim
Device ran hot while charging
Class
Bug, hardware
Reportability flag
Raised, routed to review
Confidence
Clock start, 3 August 2026
Held for
The named reviewer, by name

As received

Taken from the store review and the intake record — nothing on this side is written by the agent.

What the record holds

  • The verbatim
  • Product named
  • Reporter market

Why no filing here

Whether an event is reportable is a call the named reviewer makes.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold an item gets a safety-lead read before the reviewer sees it.

Action

ConfirmReclassifySend to safety review

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every verbatim

From the channel it arrived on

03Labelling

What the label decides

A voice-of-customer agent ties themes to the words behind them; this one decides which bucket an item enters, and one of those buckets starts a statutory clock.

01Approved path

A label is a decision

The same verbatim can carry a twenty-four-hour duty or a thirty-day one, and neither attaches to the class you filed it under.

02Human review

What was checked, and not found

No law of general application requires an ordinary software company to classify product feedback at all. Every duty found here is sectoral — devices, vehicles, consumer products, mortgage servicing — and it attaches to what you sell, never to the fact that feedback arrived.

04

Build an evidence trail

The verbatim, the label it was given and the analyst who confirmed it stay together.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Support and ticketing

    • Zendesk
    • Intercom
    • Freshdesk
    • Support tickets and chat threads

  • App stores and reviews

    • App Store
    • Google Play
    • G2
    • Public reviews and ratings

  • Sales and field notes

    • Salesforce
    • HubSpot
    • Gong
    • Field reports and win-loss call notes

Agent

Feedback classification

  • Reads the item
  • Proposes the label
  • Holds for the reviewer

  • Complaint and quality records

    • Jira
    • Linear
    • Azure DevOps
    • Complaint handling and CAPA files

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six sieves between the model and the record

Six sieves in one stack, the last the tightest. What falls through is drawn in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to intake and routing when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, taxonomy and threshold changes, and note the version each label ran under.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the verbatim, the label, the flag, the model version, the threshold and the reason.Record
L3Reviewer releaseHold a flagged item for a named reviewer; the hold governs release, not whether the label is right.Gate
L2Taxonomy guardrailsTest each label against the configured taxonomy, and refuse a merge that drops a member or a timestamp.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute a low-confidence item to a safety-lead read instead of closing it automatically.Require review
Model coreLabel proposed — the class, the reportability flag, the clock start and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a label may stand
L3
Leaves the determination to a reviewer
L4 – L5
Keep the verbatim and the label behind it
L6
Routes to a person when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole triage path — not only the label that comes out.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the label a complaint file carries

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the item get the class and the flag its words called for?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right product, the right market and the live taxonomy?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct item and the correct queue?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence labels actually attract more reviewer overrides?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific channels?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many items needed an override before the reviewer confirmed?

Floor — the duty a label sets running

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, each pinned to the stage where it first shows.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • QC-03

      Wrong product read

      The item names a product the agent did not map.

    Stage gathers

    The verbatim, the product, the market and the channel

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • QC-04

      Flag not raised

      The safety signal is absorbed by the bug class.

    • QC-06

      Merge drops a member

      A cluster of events becomes one dated item.

    Stage proposes

    The class, the flag, the clock start and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • QC-02

      Silent clock start

      A duty begins with no person aware of it.

    • QC-05

      Jurisdiction unresolved

      The market the reporter sits in is unread.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • QC-01

      Label made, reason unrecorded

      The record shows the label but not what was evaluated.

    Stage returns

    The label a complaint file and an auditor see

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • QC-07

      Silent taxonomy drift

      A threshold moves and fewer items reach the flag.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, taxonomy rules and thresholds

  • Sev-1 · a reportable event closed as bug
  • Sev-2 · a clock runs with no owner
  • Sev-3 · input degrades, item routes to review
See the complete Product failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

Safety-adjacent items absorb the overrides

A class-level escalation figure can read clean while safety-adjacent verbatims absorb most of the reviewer overrides. Nestack reports the override rate by feedback class, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Safety-adjacent verbatims13.2%3.7×Review
Merged duplicate clusters9.4%2.6×Review
Non-English verbatims5.9%1.7×Watch
Routine feature requests2.8%0.8×Normal

Bar: override-rate lift vs. routine-request baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

What the wrong bucket costs

A cycle ends when the safety report filed under a bug label is a standing case. That suite is what the next batch classified is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Override rate rises on safety-adjacent verbatims.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The insulin-logging report filed under UX bug, on the morning the clock quietly started, is pulled apart until a single cause remains.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The change ships numbered, and the verbatims that forced it ride with it.

  4. 04

    Verify

    One label case still failing is enough to hold the release back.

  5. 05

    Learn

    It is kept for good, and the labelling rules are amended in the same commit.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next batch is labelled against a suite one case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, labelling workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Feedback-taxonomy and automation-boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02Support, store and field source assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Taxonomy-to-verbatim and reportability-flag mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Multi-channel intake.Week 2
  5. 05Label, flag and clock-start binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and review routing.Week 3
  7. 07Reviewer confirmation workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Ticketing-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Label and escalation cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and routing controls.Week 4
  11. 11Label-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne channel, one quarterProductionProduction feedback workflowAdvancedMultiple channels / markets
Introduced at Pilot
Label and flag to your taxonomy✓✓✓
Named reviewer confirmation✓✓✓
Feedback-corpus baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by label class—✓✓
Reviewer workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Ticketing-and-store integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multiple taxonomies——✓
Multi-team review chains——✓
High feedback volume——✓
Multi-channel intake controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, feedback volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your live feedback channels and the taxonomy you label with

    Taxonomy capture and reportability-flag design

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative verbatims from each of your live channels

    Channel binding, label logic and the corpus baseline

    Week 2

  3. 03Your escalation path and the reviewers it names

    Taxonomy mapping, flag design and the automation boundary

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Support, store and field source assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Labels you would not want audited

    Escalation cases and the failure-mode round

    Week 4

  6. 06What no label may close

    Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and release controls

    Week 3

  7. 07A named reviewer who confirms the label

    Reviewer confirmation workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

The bands below are measured, not spaced for looks; week five carries two because those two overlap.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Feedback channel discovery, taxonomy mapping and the automation boundary

W2Source integration and the feedback-corpus baseline

W3Labelling workflow, flag logic and reviewer release controls

W4Evaluation suite, escalation cases and failure-mode testing

W5Ticketing and store integration, pilot batches and corrections

W6One feedback quarter run under the product owner, then Agent Care handover

Reading the band
A band sits on the weeks its work is actually named in, and the week five doubling is real.
At the end of W6
When the label record validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Product AI agent

Build a feedback agent around the label your taxonomy has no name for.

Show us one quarter of feedback and the taxonomy you sorted it into. Every label in that quarter decided something: which queue an item joined, who read it, and whether a clock started. If no class exists for a reportable event, the safety signals landed in bug.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your live channels
Named reviewer
Flag not filter
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Feedback triage

AGT-PRD-01 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a feedback triage agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your feedback

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.