PRD Template & Generator (Free)

# Hypothetical: integration onboarding – Product Requirements Document

> Evidence-safe draft: known facts, interpretations, assumptions, and unknowns are intentionally kept separate.

## 0. Header

| Owner | Stakeholders | Status | Target date | Doc version | Links to tickets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  | Draft |  | 0.2 |  |

## 1. Summary / decision

- Problem: Some workspace admins start integration setup but do not reach the first successful data sync, creating repeated setup work and support demand.
- Target user: Workspace admins configuring a supported integration for the first time
- Desired outcome: More eligible admins reach a successful first sync with less avoidable clarification work.
- Decision / direction: Improve clarity and recovery inside the existing setup flow before adding providers or automating the full workflow.
- Primary success signal: Eligible admins reaching first successful sync; target Establish baseline before setting a target

## 2. User, problem, and evidence

**Target user:** Workspace admins configuring a supported integration for the first time

**Problem:** Some workspace admins start integration setup but do not reach the first successful data sync, creating repeated setup work and support demand.

**Current workaround:** Admins consult setup documentation or contact support when credentials or provider-specific steps are unclear.

### Observed evidence
- Hypothetical observation: the setup funnel loses users before first successful sync.
- Hypothetical support pattern: setup conversations repeatedly mention credentials and provider-specific steps.

### Interpretation
- The evidence suggests setup friction may contribute to abandonment, but it does not yet prove that a guided wizard is the right solution.

### Source links
- Not specified

## 3. Desired outcome and success signals

More eligible admins reach a successful first sync with less avoidable clarification work.

**Why now:** Reduce avoidable setup failure before investing in broader provider expansion.

| Type | Metric / signal | Baseline | Target / threshold | Timebox | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| outcome | Eligible admins reaching first successful sync | Unknown | Establish baseline before setting a target | First post-release review window | Hypothetical example; no benchmark implied |
| diagnostic | Setup-related support contacts per started setup | Unknown | Directionally lower; threshold to be defined | First post-release review window | Hypothetical example |

## 4. Scope

### In scope
- Clarify the supported first-time integration setup path.
- Make required credentials and provider-specific prerequisites visible before submission.
- Provide actionable recovery when setup validation fails.

### Non-goals / out of scope
- Adding new integration providers.
- Changing existing security requirements.
- Solving post-setup data quality or long-term integration health.

### Future possibilities (not commitments)
- Provider-specific setup automation after the main failure modes are validated.

**Constraints:** Hypothetical Security owner confirms credential values must never be exposed in setup failure messaging. The Product still uses the existing supported providers and integration API; this PRD does not choose implementation architecture.

## 5. Product requirements

| ID | Product behavior / constraint | Truth state | Basis / source type | Source / authority reference | Why this exists / user or Product value | Priority | Linked outcome(s) | Open question | Acceptance handoff | Acceptance boundary | Change note | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FR-1 | Before connection is submitted, an eligible admin can see which credentials and prerequisites are required for the selected provider. | Confirmed Product decision | Product decision | Hypothetical decision record D-01: improve clarity and recovery inside the existing setup flow. | Reduce avoidable failed attempts caused by missing setup information. | Unspecified | Eligible admins reaching first successful sync |  | Ready for story / criteria handoff | The requirement is satisfied only when prerequisite information is available in the setup flow before submission. | If the selected setup direction changes, re-check the linked first-sync outcome and downstream story/criteria handoff. | Illustrative hypothetical requirement; validate before reuse. |
| FR-2 | When setup validation fails, the Product never exposes submitted credential values in the recovery message. | Confirmed external constraint | Specialist constraint | Hypothetical Security review SEC-01: submitted credential values must not be exposed in failure messaging. | Preserve the confirmed credential-safety boundary while the Product team decides which failure details are useful to expose. | Must | Eligible admins reaching first successful sync; Setup-related support contacts per started setup | Which provider-specific failure reasons are safe and useful to expose? | Specialist source unresolved | Credential values remain hidden; which provider-specific failure reason can be exposed is intentionally unresolved. | If Security changes this constraint, re-review the recovery behavior and any downstream acceptance rules. | Illustrative hypothetical requirement; validate before reuse. |

## 6. Key scenarios / acceptance boundaries

- Admin begins setup without all required provider credentials.
- Admin submits credentials that fail a known validation check.
- Validation returns an unknown failure that cannot be safely diagnosed in-product.

> Detailed Given/When/Then acceptance criteria belong in the downstream acceptance-criteria workflow once the behavior is confirmed.

## 7. Dependencies and product constraints

- Existing integration API validation behavior.
- Security review of any new credential/error messaging.
- Analytics definition for started setup and first successful sync.

Hypothetical Security owner confirms credential values must never be exposed in setup failure messaging. The Product still uses the existing supported providers and integration API; this PRD does not choose implementation architecture.

## 8. Risks, assumptions, and unknowns

### Risks
- A product change may not improve completion if abandonment is mainly caused by low intent rather than setup friction.
- Error guidance could expose sensitive information if failure messages are not designed carefully.

### Assumptions
- The current setup funnel measures first successful sync reliably.
- The support taxonomy is detailed enough to identify common setup failure classes.

### Unknowns / open questions
- Which failure reasons are common enough and safe enough to explain in-product?
- What baseline completion rate and support-contact rate should be established before a target is set?

## 9. Decision record

**Decision / direction:** Improve clarity and recovery inside the existing setup flow before adding providers or automating the full workflow.

**Reason:** This direction addresses the observed point of friction while keeping the larger solution choice reversible and bounded by the existing integration/security constraints.

**Alternatives rejected:**
- Add a full setup wizard immediately, rejected for now because the evidence does not establish that a wizard is necessary.
- Expand provider coverage first, rejected because it does not address the observed first-sync failure.

**Revisit if:** Revisit the direction if funnel/support evidence shows that low intent, unsupported providers, or another cause explains most abandonment.

## 10. Measurement and instrumentation

Instrument only what is needed to evaluate the supplied signals: Eligible admins reaching first successful sync, Setup-related support contacts per started setup. Exact events and implementation remain to be defined.

## 11. Validation / rollout

Validate recovery wording and the measured failure classes with affected admins and Security before selecting the release approach.

**Timebox:** To be defined after scope and technical constraints are reviewed

## 12. Follow-up decisions

- Move only confirmed behavior into user stories or detailed acceptance criteria when delivery-sized slicing is useful.
- Resolve the open questions that materially block the next product or delivery decision.

## 13. Truth map

### Known / supplied
- Target user: Workspace admins configuring a supported integration for the first time
- Observed problem: Some workspace admins start integration setup but do not reach the first successful data sync, creating repeated setup work and support demand.
- Current workaround: Admins consult setup documentation or contact support when credentials or provider-specific steps are unclear.
- Evidence: Hypothetical observation: the setup funnel loses users before first successful sync.
- Evidence: Hypothetical support pattern: setup conversations repeatedly mention credentials and provider-specific steps.
- In scope: Clarify the supported first-time integration setup path.
- In scope: Make required credentials and provider-specific prerequisites visible before submission.
- In scope: Provide actionable recovery when setup validation fails.
- Non-goal: Adding new integration providers.
- Non-goal: Changing existing security requirements.
- Non-goal: Solving post-setup data quality or long-term integration health.

### Interpreted
- The evidence suggests setup friction may contribute to abandonment, but it does not yet prove that a guided wizard is the right solution.

### Assumed
- The current setup funnel measures first successful sync reliably.
- The support taxonomy is detailed enough to identify common setup failure classes.

### Unknown
- Which failure reasons are common enough and safe enough to explain in-product?
- What baseline completion rate and support-contact rate should be established before a target is set?