Conflicting Canvas Comments Need One Design Decision

Affiliation: Marketing Wiki's commissioning editor maintains Migma. Resolve the decision behind contradictory Migma comments before requesting another design change. An email can have detailed feedback and still lack a coherent instruction: two reviewers may be asking for incompatible goals, disputed facts or different preferences.

Marketing Wiki Research Automation published this guide directly without independent review. Sources were checked on October 7, 2026. The cases below are fictional. No collaborative edit, conflict detector or model behavior was tested.

Why open feedback deserves a decision pass#

Migma's Visual Canvas guide says unresolved comments can guide the next design change. Resolved comments stay visible without guiding later edits. Treat that documented distinction as a reason to review the active instructions, not as a promise that Migma will arbitrate disagreements for the team.

Before the next turn, identify the exact email and current version. Pause competing revision requests long enough to read the relevant threads together. A thread on another email in the series should not silently become an instruction for this one.

The cited documentation does not define a universal precedence rule between comments, the latest prompt and saved brand instructions. Do not try to settle a human disagreement by guessing which text the model will prioritize.

Case one: two actions compete for the email's purpose#

A fictional volunteer fair is preparing an email whose accepted brief asks existing volunteers to choose a shift. One reviewer comments, “Make joining the general mailing list the main button.” Another says, “Keep choosing a shift as the main button.” Both directions may be reasonable for different campaigns, but they compete in this one.

The producer returns to the accepted goal and asks the volunteer coordinator to decide. The coordinator keeps shift selection primary and moves the mailing-list idea to a separate future brief. This is a scope decision, not a claim that one CTA universally performs better.

Record the goal, decision owner, selected instruction and disposition of the competing idea beside the discussion. Resolve the superseded instruction with that explanation when the feedback is handled. Keep the chosen direction explicit in the next scoped request rather than assuming that a resolved discussion will guide generation.

Case two: a wording request hides a disputed fact#

Another comment asks for “Free parking for every volunteer.” The current event packet supplies a venue address but no parking entitlement. A second reviewer asks to remove the line because it is unverified.

This conflict cannot be settled by choosing the shorter sentence or counting votes. Ask the event owner for the actual parking policy. Until that evidence arrives, the accepted instruction is to omit the parking promise. Keep the factual question open in the decision record if it remains unresolved.

Migma's brand setup guide documents Brand Guidelines for approved information and AI Instructions for lasting preferences. Confirm whether a disputed statement is a current event fact or a reusable brand instruction. Do not save a one-event assumption as a permanent rule just to stop the comments disagreeing.

Once the owner supplies evidence, approve the precise claim and its scope. The designer can then use that accepted fact. A comment from someone with broad application access is not, by itself, evidence about parking.

Case three: preferences can be bounded without becoming policies#

Two design reviewers disagree about the header: one wants a large illustration, the other a compact text heading. Neither change alters the verified event facts. The assigned design owner chooses the compact heading for this email's hierarchy and records the illustration idea as an optional direction for a later campaign.

The decision belongs to the current artifact. It need not rewrite the brand's lasting instructions or erase the other reviewer's suggestion. When a preference is nonblocking, label it accordingly so it does not compete with an unresolved factual issue.

Migma's Team Access guide permits commenters to leave feedback and handle threads without editing or sending the email. Those permissions support participation; they do not assign the final content or design decision to whichever reviewer has the most access.

A decision journal before the next turn#

Use this original journal for each genuine contradiction:

Target: exact Migma email and reviewed version
Competing instructions: links or references to both threads
Conflict type: goal, fact, preference or unclear scope
Accountable owner: person authorized to decide this issue
Evidence: accepted brief or verified source; unknown when absent
Decision: one usable instruction, with its boundaries
Other instruction: declined, deferred or waiting for evidence
Thread treatment: explanation recorded; resolved only when handled
Next request: focused change using the accepted instruction

Read the remaining unresolved comments before submitting that request. If an important contradiction remains, pause that change. Do not use “follow all feedback” when all feedback cannot be true at once.

Use Mark Select when the accepted change concerns a specific area, and inspect the result for both the chosen edit and retained facts. The volunteer fair's address and shift link should survive a header revision. Keep the previous reviewed version available for comparison.

The separate version and approval guide establishes which artifact was approved. This journal establishes what the next revision is supposed to do. Start with one conflicting pair, one accountable owner and one explicit design instruction; resolution of the discussion still does not approve the campaign.