Skip to main content

​
What Analysis shows

Analysis is the first output. It ranks every feature by priority: its weighted value divided by its effort, with the top item scored 10 and the rest relative to it. The header states the result in a sentence, a chart plots value against effort, and the table underneath carries the ranking. Analysis unlocks when setup is complete: needs, stakeholders with weights totalling 100, features each linked to at least one need, and at least one answer on every need a feature links to. In a Direct project it unlocks as soon as there is a feature with an effort.

​
How a score is built

For a Weighted project:
  1. Each need’s importance is the weighted average of the stakeholder ratings it received, abstentions excluded.
  2. A feature’s value is its coverage of each need multiplied by that need’s importance, summed.
  3. Its priority is value divided by effort, rescaled so the highest is 10.
For a Direct project, value is the priority level’s number (must 5, should 3, could 1 by default) and priority is that number divided by effort. In a Weighted project, click a row, or its Details link, to open the explanation of its score: a section per need it delivers, showing how each stakeholder’s weight and rating built that need’s importance, and how the coverage score turned it into value.

​
The table

Each row shows the feature’s rank, its parent group where it has one, its effort, its value and its priority score. The rank is the feature’s place when every feature is ordered by priority, with ties going to the smaller effort. It is the same number on the Roadmap tab, and it does not change when you re-sort the table. In a Weighted project, must-haves are listed together at the top and marked with a star, but they keep the rank their priority earns: must-have means the feature is forced into the plan, not that it scored well. In Weighted projects a Stakeholder Alignment column says how much stakeholders agreed about the needs this feature delivers: In a Mixed or Disputed row’s Details, Explain this conflict asks the AI to describe the disagreement in plain language from the actual ratings: who rated what, how their weights pulled the score, and what a reader should check. The explanation quotes only current ratings, never withdrawn ones. Must-haves carry a marker, and a feature with no coverage yet shows an unscored marker rather than a misleading zero.

​
Groups, colours and filters

When features are organised into groups, every row carries its group’s colour and a row of chips above the chart lets you filter to one group at a time. The chips double as the colour key. A filtered table says “N of M, filtered” so a subset is never mistaken for the whole.

​
Worth checking

Below the header, Analysis lists the things a careful reader would question: needs that nothing delivers, features with too few votes behind them, disputed items near the top, must-haves whose score would not have carried them. The same list appears on the Roadmap tab and in the Decision Report, so the caveats travel with the numbers.

​
Tips

  • A feature can rank high on priority and still be small in value: priority rewards value per unit of effort. The Decision Report’s ranked list shows both so the distinction is visible.
  • Sort out Disputed items before the review. The explanation usually points at one or two ratings worth a conversation.
  • Export project data on this tab downloads the whole project as an .xlsx workbook, including the per-stakeholder breakdown behind every score.