Resolution correctness
What counts as correctly resolving a support ticket?
The fix addressed the cause rather than the symptom, and the ticket shows how that was confirmed. A ticket closed because the customer stopped replying is not resolved, and a workaround presented as a fix is scored as the thing it is.
- Applied the correct remediation
- One of the 11 dimensions every ticket here is graded against
What a weak answer looks like
The ways this is usually lost
Named failures rather than general warnings, because a warning nobody can recognise in their own work changes nothing.
Closing because the symptom went away, with nothing establishing why.
A workaround described as a resolution, leaving the fault in place for the next person who hits it.
A fix applied to the one record that was reported when the same fault affects others nobody has looked at.
What a strong one looks like
What the grader is actually looking for
The same ticket, done in the way that scores.
A named cause, a named change, and the check that confirmed the change worked.
A workaround called a workaround, with what still needs doing and who holds it.
The blast radius considered: whether anybody else is affected, and what was done about them.
Questions
Asked about this one
Is a workaround ever the right answer?
Often. Restoring somebody today while a defect is fixed properly is good support. What is scored is whether it was labelled honestly and whether the real fault was recorded, not whether a workaround was used.
Can a ticket be resolved without finding the cause?
It can be closed, and sometimes that is correct. It should say that the cause was not established, so the pattern is visible when it happens again rather than buried under a tidy closure.
See this scored on a real ticket: work one free, read a worked ticket, or see what a graded record shows. Every guide is listed on the guides index, and if something here is wrong or unclear, tell us.