LearnGrokThis workflow gives you a single governance sheet for deciding which queue macros stay, change, merge, retire, or need to be written. It is for support operations managers and knowledge managers who need consistent replies without losing the evidence behind each decision.
Start with the source material, not a request to improve the wording. A polished macro can still be the wrong reply for the case, point to an old process, or have no accountable owner.
Key point
Make the sheet a decision record
Each proposed macro change needs evidence, an owner, and a clear approval decision. A list of suggested edits is not governance.
Prepare the review set
Gather the material that tells you both what agents can send and what they should now send:
- The macro export, including IDs, titles, body text, folders, tags, languages, and any existing owner or review-date fields.
- A list of customer contact reasons. Use queue tags, a case taxonomy, or a manually selected set of recurring issues.
- Current process notes and approved help-centre content.
- The ownership map for policy, product, billing, technical, and support content.
- Recent change notices that affect instructions, eligibility, timings, links, or customer promises.
Remove customer names, email addresses, account numbers, order references, and private case notes before pasting material. Keep enough context to understand the customer situation. For example, retain delivery delayed after dispatch, but remove the individual order history.
Stop
Do not use case snippets as policy
A past agent reply can show a common issue. It does not establish the correct promise, refund route, or eligibility rule.
If your export is large, split it by queue or language. Keep the same source labels in every batch, such as Returns macros, export 12 or Billing macro folder. This makes later evidence checks possible. Check the current supported input options in the xAI documentation overview, as file and product behaviour can be version-dependent.
Run the prompts in order
- Run Build a macro inventory on the raw export. Its job is to preserve the existing wording while making missing fields visible. Do not ask it to improve anything at this stage.
- Run Find duplicates and missing cases with the completed inventory and your contact-reason list. This separates genuinely duplicate responses from replies that differ because the next action differs.
- Run Flag outdated wording and owners using the same inventory and your current reference material. Give it actual extracts, not a statement that the policy has changed.
- Run Create the governance sheet with all three earlier outputs. Save this result as the working approval document.
- Run Check the sheet before approval before sending it to the support lead. Correct the source material or the sheet where needed, then repeat the check.
Keep the outputs together in one review folder. Name the final file with the queue and review period, for example Returns macro governance sheet, Q2 review. Do not overwrite the original macro export.
Decide what each row means
The governance sheet works only if the decision values are applied consistently.
| If you see | Use this decision | What the support lead approves |
|---|---|---|
| Two macros give the same outcome for the same customer situation | Merge |
Which macro remains and what wording survives |
| The macro is still needed but a route, promise, link, or phrase conflicts with current material | Revise |
The required content change and owner |
| A recurring contact reason has no approved reply | Create |
The need, scope, and owner for a new macro |
| The macro has no valid use case or has been replaced | Retire |
Removal from agent access and any replacement |
| Sources conflict or no accountable owner is evidenced | Investigate |
The question and person who must resolve it |
A Keep decision is still a decision. Use it only when the macro has a clear use case, no evidenced conflict, and a named or confirmed review owner. It is not a default for rows you did not have time to inspect.
Note
Separate content approval from operational publication
The support lead may approve the decision while a policy owner confirms wording and an administrator publishes the macro. Record both responsibilities where your process requires them.
Check whether the output is wrong
Read the governance sheet against the source, not just for spelling. Wrong output often sounds organised because it has converted uncertainty into a confident recommendation.
Check these points row by row:
- The macro ID matches the original export. A wrong ID can retire or alter the wrong reply.
- The quoted wording appears in the macro body exactly as shown.
- The cited help-centre article or process note actually supports the claimed conflict or update.
- A duplicate pair has the same customer situation and outcome. Different eligibility rules or next steps mean it is probably an overlap, not a duplicate.
- Every
Createrow comes from an evidenced contact reason, not an imagined edge case. - Every named approval owner appears in the ownership material.
Unassignedis better than a plausible guess. - No review date has been invented. Use
Set by ownerwhere no schedule exists.
Check
The sheet is ready when every action can be traced
Pick five rows at random. You should be able to find the original macro, the evidence for the decision, and the person who must approve it.
Also check tone separately from correctness. A macro may be accurate but inconsistent with your approved voice. Flag the exact sentence causing the issue, such as an informal greeting in a formal queue or a vague assurance with no next step. Do not replace it with a preferred style unless your tone standard is supplied.
Take the sheet to approval
Send the support lead the governance sheet and the short approval summary. Ask them to decide the rows marked Needs discussion first, because these block implementation. After approval, record the decision date and the person who approved it in your own change record. Then assign publishing work only to approved Revise, Merge, Retire, and Create rows.
If the output is not usable, do not keep refining the same request. Find the missing input. Usually it is an incomplete export, no current reference text, an absent ownership map, or a contact-reason list that is too broad. Add that material, mark unresolved points explicitly, and rerun only the prompt affected by the missing evidence.
