Overview
A Gorgias routing hygiene audit checks whether support tickets are tagged, assigned, and routed in a way the team can trust. Juno reviews recent and open tickets, finds inconsistent ownership or taxonomy patterns, and produces an audit table with cleanup recommendations.
This playbook is for the moment when reports look suspicious, tickets keep landing with the wrong team, or everyone agrees the tagging system is "mostly fine" but nobody wants to bet the weekly dashboard on it.
Why you should clean up routing before reporting breaks
Ticket routing problems are easy to miss because the work still appears to move. The cost shows up later: stale escalations, duplicate tags, unclear ownership, unreliable reporting, and extra manual sorting for the support team.
Gorgias documents support workflows around tickets, customers, tags, and teams in its help center, which is why a hygiene audit should look beyond ticket counts. The point is to check whether the operating layer behind those conversations is consistent enough to support decisions.
Clean routing gives the team cleaner dashboards, faster ownership, and fewer "who has this?" moments. It also makes future automation safer because the underlying tags and assignments carry clearer meaning.
Step-by-step
- 1Confirm the audit window and the routing rules the team expects, including active teams, escalation paths, tag taxonomy, stale status definitions, and ownership conventions.
- 2Review recent and open Gorgias tickets across tags, teams, assignees, statuses, customer context, and reopened or duplicate conversations.
- 3Identify high-confidence hygiene defects, such as missing owners, conflicting tags, stale statuses, misrouted tickets, duplicated tag meanings, and escalations without a clear next owner.
- 4Prioritize findings by operational impact, separating issues that affect customer response, reporting accuracy, team workload, and future automation.
- 5Produce a routing hygiene audit table and a short summary that recommends cleanup actions, flags reporting risks, and names taxonomy decisions for human review.
Frequently asked questions
What if the team does not have formal routing rules?
Juno should infer the most consistent current patterns, mark them as assumptions, and focus the audit on obvious exceptions. Unclear rules should become review questions, not invented policy.
Is this a one-time cleanup or a recurring workflow?
It can be either. A monthly audit is useful for steady operations, while a one-time audit works well before reporting changes, support team restructuring, or new automation.
What does the audit produce?
The playbook produces a table of routing and tag hygiene issues, severity, affected tickets or patterns, recommended fixes, and review status, plus a concise summary for the support lead.
