Support Knowledge Gap Mapper

Self-initiated fictional demonstration from a local independent AI test. Not customer work, a verified support audit, an approved customer answer or a measured business result.

Scope

Internal, unpublished review for Loomlet v2 workspace admins. The sample covers September 21-27, 2026: five distinct tickets, T1-T5, plus one duplicate copy of T2. Ticket completeness is unknown; K1-K4 are selected excerpts, not the full knowledge base. No resolution or investigation notes were supplied.

K1 is current and approved; K2 is current digest help. K3 and K4 share a version and audience, but authority is unresolved. A later timestamp does not establish precedence. Coverage is textual, not proof that guidance works or customers saw it.

Coverage Map

1. Recovery after losing the only sign-in factor

• Evidence and count: T5; one distinct ticket. Relevant excerpts: K3 and K4.
• State: Conflicting. K3 requires support identity verification. K4 says admins can restore access immediately from the sign-in page without verification. No scoped authority decision resolves these incompatible requirements.
• Gap: The approved recovery route and verification requirements are unresolved.
• Recommended route: Authorized support should handle T5's access request. A documentation authority should resolve the conflict before approving an update. Documentation cannot restore access.
• Next evidence check: Obtain a scoped authority decision for v2 admins who lost their only factor, including any conditions distinguishing the excerpts. Do not adopt the no-verification claim as a workaround.

2. Workspace rename fails when Save is selected

• Evidence and count: T4; one distinct ticket. Relevant excerpt: K1.
• State: Partial. K1 covers the normal rename sequence, not an error after following it. T4 reports an operation failure, not a navigation question.
• Gap: Error-specific guidance and a verified cause are absent. This does not establish a product bug.
• Recommended route: Support triage, with product investigation if warranted. Consider troubleshooting documentation only after the failure and an approved response are understood.
• Next evidence check: Request the redacted error text, relevant workspace context, reproducibility and any investigation or resolution notes. Do not prescribe repeated attempts or another unverified fix.

3. Choosing a different weekly digest day

• Evidence and count: T2 and T3; two distinct tickets. Relevant excerpt: K2.
• State: Partial. K2 says digests arrive on Monday, but does not say whether admins can change the day.
• Gap: Configurability, applicable conditions and any approved steps are unanswered. A Monday delivery schedule does not establish that the day is either fixed or customizable.
• Recommended route: Clarify the existing digest help after product behavior is verified. A separate article is not yet justified; this may be a small update to K2.
• Next evidence check: Confirm whether Loomlet v2 admins can change the day. If supported, verify the control and its conditions; if unsupported, obtain approved wording that states the limitation.

4. Finding the workspace rename control

• Evidence and count: T1 and the rename-location question in T2; two distinct tickets. Relevant excerpt: K1.
• State: Covered by supplied excerpt. K1 directly gives the approved path: Workspace settings > General > Name > Save.
• Gap: None established for locating and using the normal rename control. T4's Save error is a separate need above.
• Recommended route: Use existing guidance. Help discovery or onboarding review is a hypothesis; repetition proves neither a discoverability problem nor a need for another article.
• Next evidence check: Determine whether these requesters encountered K1 and whether it was easy to find in the relevant context.

Priority and Documentation Draft

Resolve the recovery contradiction first because it gives incompatible access and identity-verification guidance. T4 follows for operational triage because the reported action failed. Digest-day clarification follows, supported by two tickets; covered rename questions are lower priority. This ordering reflects sample evidence, not business-wide frequency or impact.

Proposed recovery-help update outline, for internal review only:

• Audience and need: Loomlet v2 workspace admins who lost their only sign-in factor.
• Source issue: K3 and K4 disagree about verification and the recovery entry point. Retain both references in the review record.
• Questions requiring approval: Which source governs this exact scope? What verification, eligibility and recovery steps are approved? Does either excerpt apply only under conditions missing here?
• Pending approved content: Add the confirmed route, requirements and escalation guidance only after that decision. Do not promise immediate restoration.
• Completion check: Reconcile the conflicting excerpts against the scoped decision and verify that the revised text answers T5's need.

This is an unsent, unpublished outline, not approved recovery instructions.

Human Work and Count Check

Account recovery for T5 and investigation of T4 remain outside the article backlog. Digest capability and recovery authority require verification; no owner or deadline was supplied. Routes above are suggestions, not assignments.

• Six ticket copies were supplied: five unique identified tickets and one duplicate copy of T2. No unidentified ticket excerpts were supplied.
• All substantive needs are accounted for: T1 rename; T2 rename and digest day; T3 digest day; T4 Save error; T5 recovery.
• Group counts total six need occurrences because T2 belongs to two groups. Its duplicate adds neither a ticket nor another occurrence.
• These are ticket counts, not counts of affected people, accounts or incidents. Selected excerpts and unknown ticket completeness do not support conclusions about the whole knowledge base or wider prevalence.