At a glance
Of every audit finding that landed on the configured Lucidchart document in the last 90 days, the percentage that has been moved into a Done-labelled container or layer. The headline number for “is the team using Lucidchart as a real delivery surface, or just as a documentation overlay where findings get parked and forgotten?” Lucidchart is documentation-first (flowcharts, ERDs, network diagrams) rather than triage-first, so this card is uncommon and most useful where the team has explicitly chosen Lucidchart as a parallel Kanban-style tracker. For most teams, audit findings should route to Jira, Asana, or Height; Lucidchart’s resolution rate exists for the small population of merchants who insist on running diagram-led tracking.
Calculation
Calculated automatically from your Lucidchart data. See the At a glance summary above for what the metric tracks and the worked example below for a typical reading.Worked example
A small B2B brand on BigCommerce uses a Lucidchart document called Storefront Ops Kanban as a parallel tracker (alongside their main architecture diagrams in other Lucidchart documents). The document has four labelled containers: Inbox, Owned, In review, Done. Snapshot taken on 02 May 26. Trailing 90 days: 03 Feb 26 → 02 May 26 (89 days).
The team is closing all the criticals and highs (the documentation-tied findings get attention because the shape sits next to the diagram that explains the system). The medium / low tail is dragging slightly because those shapes drift to the back of the canvas and get forgotten until the next ops review.
What the merchant does: the team’s monthly architecture review (next scheduled 09 May 26) doubles as a Lucidchart triage. They open the document, filter by
vortexiq:finding tag, and bulk-process the 4 medium / low shapes still in Inbox. Two get moved to Done (genuinely already addressed in a prior fix), one moves to Owned, one is deleted (false positive). Net rate ticks to 86%.
Compare to 60 days ago. Same brand, snapshot on 02 Mar 26: rate was 71%. The 6-point lift traces to the team adding the In review container in mid-March, which gave them a clearer “actively being looked at” state and reduced the friction of moving shapes through the workflow.
Why this is unusual. Lucidchart is not built for triage and the canvas-based interaction model adds friction compared to a list-based tracker. Teams that genuinely succeed with Lucidchart-as-tracker tend to be small (1-5 people), heavily diagram-led, and treat the audit-board as a once-a-week rather than a daily surface. The 22-finding 90-day intake in this example is realistic for that profile; intake of 60+ on Lucidchart usually means the team has outgrown the tool and a real tracker should take over.
The dangerous reading: rate at 35% with 30+ shapes accumulating on the canvas. That is the “we tried Lucidchart as a tracker and it does not scale” pattern. The alert fires below 50%; if that fires twice in 30 days the recommendation is to migrate audit dispatch to Jira / Asana / Height and keep Lucidchart for documentation only.
Sibling cards merchants should reference together
Reconciling against the vendor’s own dashboard
Where to look in Lucidchart’s own dashboard: Lucidchart does not have a “tasks” or “flow” view; the product is a diagramming tool, not a tracker. There is no native equivalent of “resolution rate” in Lucidchart’s UI. The closest manual reconciliation is to count Done-container shapes against total shapes with thevortexiq:finding custom data attribute, filtered by creation date.
Lucidchart → open the configured document → Edit menu → Find / Replace (orFor most merchants this is a 2-5 minute manual check on small documents and impractical on documents with 50+ findings. The card exists primarily for the merchants who insist on Lucidchart-as-tracker and want the dashboard read; manual reconciliation is rarely the right tool. Why our number may legitimately differ from a manual count:Ctrl-F) → entervortexiq:finding→ results pane lists matching shapes. Use the Properties panel to filter bycreatedAtin the trailing 90 days, then count rows where Container = “Done” vs total rows.
Cross-connector reconciliation:
Known limitations / merchant FAQs
Why is my Lucidchart rate lower than my Jira rate when both run on the same audit feed? Lucidchart is documentation-first, not triage-first. The canvas-based interaction adds friction (you have to open the document, navigate to the right page, find the shape, drag it) compared to a list-based tracker (one click, status changes). Same intake, same intent, slower closure rhythm. Expect a 10-20 point Jira advantage on the same merchant. If the gap is wider than 20 points, Lucidchart is no longer the team’s real delivery surface and audit dispatch should move to Jira. Why is my rate stuck at exactly 100%? On Lucidchart this is more common than on other connectors because intake is so low. Three possibilities: (1) very few findings in the window (e.g. 3 created, 3 resolved); the rate looks great but the absolute volume is too thin to be meaningful, look at intake separately. (2) Auto-dispatch is misconfigured and findings are not reaching the document. (3) The team is closing shapes immediately after creation as a workflow shortcut, check the average time-to-fix sibling. Why is my rate exactly 0%? Either no closures in 90 days (the team has stopped engaging with the document) or the team’s “Done” container has a label the connector does not recognise. Default labels recognised:Done, Closed, Resolved, Complete, Completed. Custom labels need configuration via done_container_alternates on the connector.
The rate dropped from 77% to 60% over a month. What happened?
Three usual causes on Lucidchart specifically. (1) The team had a busy product sprint and stopped opening the audit-document. The findings are still there, no one has moved them. (2) A re-organisation of the document (renaming containers, splitting pages) accidentally orphaned shapes from the Done container’s label match. (3) Window-edge effects, a closure on day 91 left the window. Look at week-over-week trend, not day-over-day.
Should I optimise this number directly?
No. On Lucidchart specifically, the more honest question is “should we be using Lucidchart for tracking at all, or just for documentation?” If the rate consistently sits below 60% over multiple quarters, the answer is usually “no, move audit dispatch to a real tracker”. Lucidchart is excellent at what it is built for (visual documentation, architecture diagrams, ERDs), but it is not a Kanban tool, and forcing it into that role costs more than it returns.
Why 90 days, not quarterly?
A rolling 90-day window updates daily; a quarterly window resets and creates artificial cliffs. Rolling is fairer for spotting trends and avoids end-of-quarter scramble gaming. On Lucidchart specifically, 90 days is also the minimum window where the low-volume intake produces a statistically meaningful rate; shorter windows are too noisy to be useful.
My team uses Lucidchart only for architecture diagrams and we never moved findings here. Why does the card exist?
The connector exists for completeness and for the small population of merchants who deliberately use Lucidchart-as-tracker. If your team does not, set the connector to documentation-only mode (turn off the audit-finding routing rule pointing at Lucidchart) and this card becomes inactive. The card stays in the system but does not surface alerts.
Does a re-opened shape hurt my rate?
No. Re-opening (Done → not-Done) does not subtract from the numerator; only forward closures count. Re-opening adds to the open count (which surfaces on the Findings Open card) but does not penalise this card. The reasoning, regressions are a separate phenomenon from closure discipline.
Why does this card matter to a non-engineering merchant?
Because Lucidchart is often where the team’s system understanding lives (architecture, integrations, data flow), and audit findings that land here are tied to specific diagrams. If the rate is dropping, the team is collecting documentation-tied findings and not acting on them, which compounds because the documentation itself becomes stale (people stop trusting it). The card is the early-warning version of “our diagrams are out of date and nobody fixes the things they describe”.
Should this number ever be 100% sustained?
No. Sustained 100% on Lucidchart usually means the rate is statistical noise (3 in, 3 out, repeated) or the team is closing shapes without real fixes. A healthy Lucidchart-as-tracker workflow runs at 70-85%; the long tail of low-priority items naturally drags the rate below 100%.
My document is over 60 shapes and the canvas is hard to navigate. Can I split it?
Yes, but configure two connector instances (one per document) so each document has its own card. Splitting a single document into two without updating the connector causes shapes on the un-configured document to disappear from the count. The cleaner answer at 60+ shapes is to migrate audit dispatch to Jira / Asana / Height; Lucidchart’s value falls off a cliff above ~50 active shapes per document.