Sharing status and ideas to improve the product based on this experience. Not looking for a response.

1. After the loss of data twice on the same project, this experience is incredibly dissatisfying. It’s also a poor experience for my new sales director who started in January.
2. Regarding the first loss of data, I noticed that once you begin to modify the configuration mapping, there’s no way to cancel. The first loss of data could have been avoided had there been a cancel button. Of course, if there is a way to cancel edits to the configuration mapping, it’s not intuitive.
   1. My recommendation is to encourage your engineers to find a more natural and identifiable approach to cancel edits.
3. The bulk action process for changing an “answer” status is clunky. The approach I took, pictured below, seems intuitive. I’d recommend your engineers review this process to find a more natural, user-friendly method.
4. I’m also recommending that your engineers consider adding user alerts and pro tips on bulk actions that will remove content.
   1. The second loss of data was totally avoidable. Had there been an on-screen alert indicating “You are about to erase all your responses.” I would not have proceeded
   2. Additionally, a “pro tip” with the alert that offers the appropriate process for changing answer status to “Not Answered” would assist the user and avoid complications with engaging your product.

Statement from user:

Each time you want to add a comment to a question in Responsive, you must first click "send" and then a window pops up asking "Your Admin recommends mentioning at least one Team Member while commenting. Do you want to proceed?" and you have to click "Continue", so double-confirming. -> please either delete the second window or give us an option "don't ask again".

One of them will be the table with the answers from the answering page and the other will be the original table from the source file.

But it does not matter if it is a table or a paragraph. If there are answers in the Word file and it is imported and modified, the export file will have the answers from the answering page and the source file.

Customers complain about this.

The export file should only have the answer from the answering page and the answers from the source file should not show up on the export file.

Request:
Add a column in the project export report (Excel) that indicates whether each Q&A pair had “Save to Library” enabled.

Current challenge:
When reviewing completed projects, managers need to validate which answers were intended for the library. Today, this requires manually going question by question inside the project, which is very time consuming, especially for large projects with hundreds of answers.

Why this matters:

• Their team does a quality check before content reaches moderation
• They need to ensure answers marked for the library have proper tags applied
• They also want to catch cases where:
  • content was saved to the library without tags
  • content had tags but was not saved to the library

Impact:
Having this as a column in the export would allow them to quickly filter and audit in bulk instead of manually reviewing each question. This would significantly improve their QA process and overall content hygiene.

I'm creating this request on behalf of ZKB team, and this is one of their critical ask.

There’s currently an option to hide duplicate records in the dedup report, but it only hides them temporarily. As soon as the page is refreshed, those records reappear.

In many cases, though, these duplicates are intentional and serve a purpose. For situations like this, the team would like the ability to permanently hide intended duplicates so that the report only shows true, actionable duplicates.

Thanks,

Sathish

Overview
• FEI Systems is actively using Responsive Projects to manage collaborative content development across multiple user roles
• Section descriptions and help text fields are designed to provide critical context and guidance for completing questions within a section
• These fields currently function as shared instructional content but lack appropriate governance controls

Current Challenge
• Authors, reviewers, and guest contributors can edit section descriptions and help text fields when assigned to questions within a section
• This behavior appears to be an unintended gap in permission enforcement
• Allowing broad editing access creates risk of inconsistent, inaccurate, or overwritten guidance across sections
• Changes to these fields can negatively impact content quality, user understanding, and overall project integrity
• There is currently no mechanism to restrict or audit who can modify these critical instructional fields

Proposed Enhancement
• Introduce role-based permission controls for editing section descriptions and help text fields
• Restrict editing access by default to admins and project primary contacts
• Provide configurable permission settings that allow designated roles to grant or revoke edit access for additional users such as authors, reviewers, and guest contributors
• Include visibility into who last modified these fields through audit history or change tracking
• Ensure permissions are consistently enforced across all project entry points where these fields can be edited

Expected Impact
• Improves governance and consistency of instructional content across projects
• Reduces risk of unintended or unauthorized changes to critical section guidance
• Enhances trust in the accuracy and reliability of project content
• Provides administrators with greater control and flexibility over collaboration workflows
• Aligns platform behavior with expected enterprise-grade permission standards

Enhancement Request:

We have encountered a limitation with the current Google Drive integration in Responsive, and we would like to request an enhancement to support an alternative authentication method.

Current Limitation:
At present, the Google Drive integration in Responsive is configured at the individual user level using standard/named Google accounts. In organizations using Google Workspace with strict security policies, external app integrations are restricted. As a result, each individual user must request approval to integrate their account with Responsive, which creates a lengthy and inefficient process for larger teams.

Customer Use Case:
For organizations such as Comarch, the preferred and approved approach is to integrate applications using a Google Service Account rather than individual user accounts. This allows integration to occur at the Business Unit (Primary BU) level, while access permissions are controlled directly within Google Drive.

Requested Enhancement:
Support Google Drive integration via a Google Service Account at the Primary Business Unit level, rather than requiring configuration at each individual user account.

Request:

The team would like the question-level due dates to be reflected in the “Daily Task Reports” instead of the section-level due dates to avoid confusion among SMEs.

Current Limitation:

Currently, the “Daily Task Reports” primarily display section-level due dates, while question-level due dates (and reviewer due dates) are either secondary or not clearly highlighted. This can lead to misunderstandings—for example, when a section due date is later than individual question due dates, SMEs may assume they have more time than they actually do.
Screenshot 1:

Screenshot 2:

Screenshot 3:

Proposed Solution:

Update the “Daily Task Reports” to prioritize or clearly display question-level due dates over section-level due dates, ensuring the most immediate and relevant deadlines are visible to users.

Benefits to Evernorth:

• Reduces confusion for SMEs regarding actual deadlines
• Improves task prioritization and adherence to timelines
• Enhances clarity and usability of reports
• Minimizes risk of missed or overdue question-level tasks

Cc: @Gosia Rios


Best regards
Lazerus

1. Decide whether to save the duplicate during the project, and then
2. Go into the Content Library afterward to manually review, compare, and merge

That effectively adds an extra step for the same person, rather than enabling them to make that decision in the moment when they already have the context of the content fresh in mind.

For these customers, having at least a lightweight ability to compare or merge (or choose a deduplication action) before saving to the library would actually reduce overhead rather than increase risk.

Would love to explore if there’s a way to support both workflows — preserving the separation for enterprise teams, while offering a more streamlined option for smaller teams.

Customer Use Case
They would like existing customers to authenticate via Okta. If a user belongs to an approved customer domain, access to the Trust Center would be automatically granted without a manual NDA process. Domain-level validation is preferred so security and IT stakeholders can access documents, even if they are not CRM account owners.

They are unable to rely on Salesforce for this workflow and need Okta as the source of truth.

Why This Matters
Providing additional NDA bypass routes beyond Salesforce will help ease adoption of Trust Center, especially for customers who do not have clean or reliable CRM data. This creates a scalable, secure way for customers to access sensitive documents like SOC reports while limiting access strictly to the Trust Center.

Thank you!

We are unable to create a content reference tag for responses that already include a CRT (i.e. the response of another Q&A pair) or references content from another response. This limits our ability to efficiently reuse and embed responses in new Q&A pairs.

Please can this be looked into. Thank you.