> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.usecustory.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Prioritize with customer context

> Use impact, effort, confidence, linked evidence, and prioritization views to choose what to work on next.

Use this guide when several opportunities are on the table and the team needs to decide which one deserves attention first.

For item-type definitions, read [Items](/items). This page focuses on the prioritization workflow.

## What prioritization looks like

Prioritization in Custory works best when the team compares problems before committing to responses.

The practical flow is:

1. Start from framed opportunities.
2. Review linked evidence and metrics.
3. Compare impact, effort, and confidence.
4. Choose the opportunities that deserve attention.
5. Compare possible solutions.
6. Link the metric that will show whether the work helped.

## Fields that make comparison useful

Custory uses a small set of fields to make tradeoffs visible.

### Impact

Use impact to estimate the upside if the problem is addressed well.

Ask:

* how many customers does this affect?
* how important is this moment in the journey?
* if we fix it, what gets meaningfully better?

### Effort

Use effort to estimate delivery cost and complexity.

Include the real work involved:

* product or engineering changes
* design work
* support or success work
* docs or follow-through work outside the product itself

### Priority

Use priority for the current decision, not for first capture.

Once several opportunities are framed, mark which ones are high, medium, or low priority based on evidence and tradeoffs visible now.

### Confidence

Use confidence when the problem feels important but the evidence is still thin.

This helps the team separate:

* `urgent and well-supported`
* `promising but needs more proof`

## Use the priority view

The [journey editor](/journey-editor) includes an impact-versus-effort view for comparison work.

Use it when the team needs to sort:

* quick wins
* expensive but important bets
* low-value work that should wait

The view is most useful when opportunities already link back to supporting evidence and relevant metrics. That way the discussion stays grounded in the customer story instead of becoming a preference debate.

## Run a weekly prioritization review

For most small teams, one short weekly review is enough.

Use a flow like this:

1. Open one focused journey.
2. Filter for high-signal opportunities and recently updated items.
3. Review the linked evidence behind each opportunity.
4. Compare impact, effort, and confidence.
5. Choose one or two opportunities to move forward.
6. Create or refine linked solutions.
7. Confirm the metric that will tell you whether the work helped.

This should feel like a decision review, not a status ceremony.

## Compare solution options

One opportunity may have several valid responses:

* a product change
* a docs change
* a lifecycle message
* a support process change

Keep multiple options visible when the team needs to compare tradeoffs before committing.

## Example review

Imagine a trial-to-paid journey.

The team reviews an opportunity: `Reduce pressure at the teammate invite step`.

Linked context shows:

* customers stall after the invite prompt
* the issue affects solo admins more than larger teams
* the current invite completion metric is below target

Candidate responses include:

* add a skip-and-return-later path
* explain why inviting a teammate helps
* trigger a follow-up email instead of forcing the invite in-session

The team scores the opportunity as high impact, moderate effort, and strong confidence. It moves into active priority, with one solution selected for delivery and one metric linked for validation.

## Prioritization mistakes to avoid

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Prioritizing solutions before the team agrees on the problem">
    That creates feature drift quickly. Keep the customer problem visible so the team remembers what outcome it is trying to improve.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Treating impact and effort as truth instead of judgment">
    These fields are decision tools, not precise forecasts. They are useful because they make tradeoffs explicit.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Ranking work with no linked evidence">
    A priority label means more when the customer signal is visible. Link the supporting evidence before the meeting when possible.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Reviewing too many opportunities at once">
    A focused review is more useful than a long tour through every open item. Filter first, then compare the few decisions that actually need attention.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## What good looks like

A strong prioritization habit means:

* the team can explain why something is high priority
* the customer moment behind the priority is visible
* solution options can be compared before commitment
* shipped work links back to the opportunity and metric

## Next step

Read [Items](/items#opportunities) if the opportunity itself still needs clearer framing. Read [External tasks](/external-tasks) when prioritized work needs delivery handoff.