At a glance
Of every audit finding that landed on the configured Mural in the last 90 days, the percentage moved into the Done frame. The headline number for “is the workshop-led audit cycle actually delivering, or is it just collecting and discussing?” Pair with workshop cadence to grade post-session follow-through.
| What it formula | (findings closed in last 90D) / (findings created in last 90D) × 100. Closures use the timestamp the sticky entered the Done frame. Creations use the original sticky-creation timestamp on the configured Mural. |
| Why a 90-day window | Workshop cadence on Mural creates burst patterns that wreck shorter windows. 90 days captures 1-3 workshop cycles, smoothing the post-workshop dip and recovery. |
| Numerator (resolved) | Stickies tagged vortexiq:finding that moved into the Done frame in the trailing 90 days. Re-opened items do NOT decrement; both Done transitions count once each. |
| Denominator (created) | Stickies tagged vortexiq:finding created on the Mural in the trailing 90 days. Items pre-dating the window are excluded from BOTH numerator and denominator. |
| Edge case, zero creations | If no findings were created in the window the card displays --. |
| Threshold rationale | Good ≥75%, warn 50-75%, critical <50%. Mural-led teams typically run lower than Miro-led teams (workshop output has more deferred items), so the 75% bar is achievable but tighter than steady-state flow. |
| Workshop pattern | Mural workshop weeks lift the denominator by 10-30 stickies in a single session. The card may dip 10-15 points in the week after a workshop and recover over 4-6 weeks. This is the expected shape, not an alert. |
| Time window | 90D (rolling) |
| Alert trigger | <50% |
| Sentiment key | vortexiq_finding_resolution_rate, gauge-typed (good ≥75, warn ≥50) |
| Roles | owner, operations |
Calculation
Calculated automatically from your Mural 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 US wellness brand on Adobe Commerce runs the audit-triage Mural with quarterly workshops (last on 25 Mar 26). Snapshot taken on 02 May 26. Trailing 90 days: 03 Feb 26 → 02 May 26 (89 days).| Source | Created | Resolved | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workshop output (25 Mar 26 session) | 25 | 16 | 64% |
| Continuous audit-feed | 22 | 15 | 68% |
| Severity | Created | Resolved | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| critical | 4 | 4 | 100% |
| high | 14 | 11 | 79% |
| medium | 18 | 11 | 61% |
| low | 11 | 5 | 45% |
severity:high and severity:critical to Mural, with medium / low going to a separate Slack-thread digest. Within 90 days the rate climbs to 80% as the denominator stops including items the team never intended to deliver.
Compare to 30 days ago. Same brand, snapshot on 02 Apr 26: rate was 78%, in good band. The drop from 78% to 66% over a month is the normal post-workshop dip; the next workshop is scheduled for 25 Jun 26 and historical pattern says rate will recover to 76-80% before then.
The dangerous reading: rate at 38% with 50+ items created in the window. That is “we are running workshops but never delivering”; the alert fires below 50%. By 38% the team has lost a quarter’s worth of intake to the abandoned tail; intervention required (capacity, scope, or stop running workshops without delivery follow-up).
Healthy comparison values for Mural-led teams:
- Steady-state (no recent workshops): 75-85%
- 0-2 weeks post-workshop: 60-70% (transient dip)
- 4-6 weeks post-workshop: 75-85% (recovery)
- Sustained <55% across multiple workshop cycles: process problem
Sibling cards merchants should reference together
| Card | Why pair it with Resolution Rate | What the combination tells you |
|---|---|---|
| VortexIQ Findings Open | Snapshot of the queue. | Open rising + rate falling = compounding backlog post-workshop. |
| Abandoned Findings (>14d no movement) | Leading indicator. Rising abandoned tomorrow = falling rate next month. | Abandoned spike 1-2 weeks after a workshop predicts the resolution-rate dip. |
| Avg Time-to-Fix (days) | Cycle time on the resolved subset. | Mural-led teams often have longer time-to-fix (workshop → assign → deliver) than Jira-led teams. |
| Throughput Trend (30d) | Weekly closure rhythm. Mural is bimodal; expect spikes near workshops. | Weekly throughput × 13 weeks ≈ resolution rate’s numerator (sanity check). |
| Datadog Operational Health Score | If both health and rate drop together, the team is seeing more findings AND fixing fewer of them. | Worst case; escalate. |
| Miro Resolution Rate | Visual-collab peer. Different rhythms. | Mural rate typically 5-10pp lower than Miro for the same merchant due to workshop overhead. |
| Jira Finding Resolution Rate | Engineering-canonical peer. | Jira rate higher than Mural rate is normal; Jira enforces workflow, Mural does not. |
Reconciling against the vendor’s own dashboard
Where to look in Mural’s own dashboard: Mural does not provide a native flow-rate dashboard. The closest manual reconciliation is to filter by tag and inspect creation vs. Done-frame timestamps over the last 90 days.
Mural app → open the configured mural → Tags panel → vortexiq:finding → Outline panel → manually count stickies in the Done frame vs. all tagged stickies created in the trailing 90 days.
For most teams the manual reconciliation is impractical (40-60 stickies with creation-date filtering by hand), which is why this card exists.
Why our number may legitimately differ from a manual count:
| Reason | Direction | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Re-opened items | Ours higher | If a sticky moved Done → Inbox → Done, both Done transitions count; manual visual count only counts current state. |
| Workshop-week intake | Boundary drift | A workshop on day 91 of the trailing window is just outside; on day 89 it is just inside. The window slides daily and can produce ±5pp swings without behaviour change. |
| Polling cadence | Ours stale up to 60s | Same as the other Mural cards. |
| Frame-name match | Possible mismatch | If the Done frame is renamed and not updated in connector config, closures stop registering and the rate drops despite real activity. |
| Permission scope | Possible undercount | Items in private sub-team frames are invisible to Vortex IQ; manual viewer with full access sees them. |
| Time zone | Boundary days off | 90-day window calculated in UTC; merchants in PST may see day-1 / day-91 boundaries shift relative to working calendar. |
| Card | Expected relationship | What causes the divergence |
|---|---|---|
miro.mir_vortexiq_finding_resolution_rate | Same metric, different visual-collab tool. | Mural rate typically 5-10pp lower than Miro for the same merchant; Mural’s workshop overhead inflates the denominator without proportionally lifting the numerator. |
jira.jir_vortexiq_finding_resolution_rate | Engineering-canonical peer. Jira’s workflow enforcement makes its rate cleaner. | Jira rate higher than Mural rate is normal; if Jira rate is also dropping, the issue is cross-tool capacity not Mural-specific. |
asana.asa_vortexiq_finding_resolution_rate | Lightweight-PM peer. | Asana enforces task ownership; rates often run higher than Mural’s. |
Known limitations / merchant FAQs
Why does my rate drop 10-15 points after every workshop? Workshop sessions add 10-30 stickies to the denominator overnight. The numerator (closures) only catches up over the following 4-6 weeks. Expected pattern, not an alert. Configure the gauge to expect bimodal behaviour by averaging across two workshop cycles rather than reading the instant value. My rate is 100% but I only have 3 stickies in the window. Is that real? Statistically thin. With under 10 stickies, the rate is too noisy to trust. Look at the absolute Resolved count or extend your auditing routine before relying on this number. The card is most meaningful at 30+ items in the window. The team uses Mural for facilitation but does delivery in Jira. Should this card stay green? Probably not, the question is whether the audit-feed dispatches to Mural at all. If the team’s delivery happens in Jira, route audit findings to Jira and disable the Mural target. Mural-with-no-audit-routing is fine; Mural-as-decoration with unhappy resolution rate is misleading. Why is my rate higher than my Miro counterpart’s? Less common but possible. Two reasons: (1) The Mural team has tighter workshop cadence and clears the post-session tail aggressively; (2) The Mural workflow excludes low-severity items from intake while Miro accepts everything, raising Mural’s denominator quality. Does deleting an abandoned sticky improve the rate? No. Deletion removes from both numerator and denominator and pulls the historical rate slightly toward the average; it does not artificially lift the visible number. The clean way to “decline” a finding is to move it into Done with a comment explaining the decision; this counts as resolved (because the team made an explicit call) and is honest about the team’s actions. My rate is sub-50% but the team’s morale is high. What gives? Workshop-led teams sometimes confuse “we had a good discussion” with “we delivered”. The rate measures only the second. If morale is high but rate is low, the team is enjoying the discovery loop without closing it; the founder or operations lead should align expectations before the gap becomes visible in customer outcomes (slow site, unfixed bugs, drift). Should this card be on a designer’s dashboard or only an ops lead’s? Both. Designers benefit from seeing whether their workshop output is getting delivered (the rate IS their feedback loop). Ops leads benefit from seeing whether the delivery system is keeping up with intake. Different use, same number. A workshop frame got archived. Will the items still count? Yes. Archived frames remain timestamped and counted unlessexclude_archived: true is set on the connector. Archive does not equal “delete from metric”; if the team wants to retire stale items, move them to Done first or apply vortexiq:reference.
Why is the alert at 50%, not 60% or 70%?
50% is the line where intake equals exit. Above 50% the team is net-clearing the queue (good); below 50% the team is net-accumulating (bad). The threshold is the inflection point, not the target. The good band starts at 75% because that is the empirical median for healthy Mural-led merchants.