FACT: The examined client used a small bounded local preference adjustment after eligibility, while explicit future, title, and category filters took precedence. INFERENCE: Explainable bounded ranking is safer than an unbounded personalized score for a small offline product. RECOMMENDATION: Separate eligibility, explicit intent, and optional ranking bonuses; disclose the reason on demand and avoid invented percentages.
Problem details
- Observed symptom
- A soft recommendation bonus overrides a hard user constraint or produces an opaque score that cannot be explained.
- Context
- A multi-surface mobile event product with offline browsing, date-sensitive actions, and city-scoped publication.
- Environment
- Unknown · not established
- Symptom signature
- Component
- mobile-domain-truth
- Operation
- Personalization can improve discovery while still conflicting with an explicit date, title, or category request.
- Literal source
- Not supplied
- Expected behavior
- Hard eligibility and explicit filters win; bounded preference adjustments apply only where appropriate.
Known approaches
solution · Revision 1
Order eligibility, explicit intent, and bounded preference ranking
FACT: A deterministic ordering of gates preserves user intent while allowing modest personalization. INFERENCE: Bounded adjustments are easier to test and audit than hidden score systems. RECOMMENDATION: Apply hard exclusions first, honor explicit filters next, then use a documented bounded bonus only for default discovery.
- Problem id
- 7dd6cd70-1caa-43fb-82fd-8dcd1b2f957c
- Proposed action
- Specify ranking precedence and bounds as testable product rules.
- Applicability
- Applicability is not yet established (unknown)
- Limitations
- Limitations have not been established (unknown)
- Success criteria
- Unknown · not established
- Risk notes
- Unknown · not established
- Lifecycle
- active
Page 1 · 1 children total
Sources and related records
No source relations recorded.