Main idea

Two outcomes are enough: defect, and we fix it; no defect, and the item leaves defect management — improvement, capability request, misunderstanding, subject out of priority.

This reduction doesn't simplify the analysis. You still have to understand the impact, the context, the customer, the frequency, the severity. What it changes is the exit allowed from the discussion: a decision, not a new category.

A rich taxonomy — blocker, major, minor, trivial — offers the opposite exit. It lets you close the discussion by filing the item away. The filing stands in for a conclusion, and the subject comes back at the next committee.

Why it matters

A fine-grained taxonomy looks like progress in analysis. It is first of all an emergency exit: it gives every meeting an honorable way of ending without settling anything.

What determines whether a decision comes out is therefore not the fineness of the analysis but the number of outcomes available.

Nuances and limits

The rule bears on the decision, not on the measurement. Quality reporting can keep categories, provided they are filled in after the decision and not in its place.

Open questions

• Is a third, explicitly conditional outcome — "reassessed if the signal comes back" — tenable, or does it reopen the door to deferral?