Main idea

A first interview with a logistics manager yields an idea: overly constraining data entry at the dock can lead receiving clerks to postpone receiving and lose discrepancies. A second interview describes slightly different behavior — the receiving clerks fill it in, but only for show — and yet says the same thing underneath: a constraint meant to obtain more information reduces its quality. The idea grows and gets a second source.

Then comes the note from financial control. The temptation is to fold it into the same idea, to qualify it, to turn it into a compromise. That would be a mistake: it does not bring one more piece of evidence, it carries a different proposition — receipts structured line by line are necessary to reconcile orders, receipts and invoices. It gets its own card.

When a source says the same thing differently, the existing idea grows; when a source says something else, it deserves its own idea. Strengthening, yes; merging to silence, no.

Why it matters

This is the decisive boundary in any work on customer feedback: it determines whether a contradiction survives or disappears. It is drawn on the proposition carried, not on the shared topic — all three pieces of feedback are about receiving.

Nuances and limits

The boundary is drawn by judgment: two pieces of feedback can seem to say the same thing and diverge on a decisive point, or the reverse. The criterion says what to look at, not how never to get it wrong.

Open questions

• How do you spot that an idea strengthened by several sources has ended up absorbing a different proposition?