.jpeg)
In this article
Your lists
A RAG backlog fills up too fast
As soon as a pilot shows potential, the backlog explodes: more sources, more domains, more prompts, more connectors, more languages. The problem is not ambition. The problem is losing criteria and mixing structural improvements with peripheral wishes.
The priority model exists to separate what enables real value from what only fattens the list.
How MoSCoW adapts to the RAG context
MoSCoW works well if it is reinterpreted through operating lenses. Must is not the flashiest item. It is what removes base risk or unlocks citable utility. Should improves quality or coverage. Could adds convenience. Won't protects focus.
- Must: source control, permissions, evaluation, or critical integration.
- Should: better retrieval, broader coverage, and frequent workflows.
- Could: UX extras or domains not yet validated.
- Won't: interesting ideas without near-term impact or without sufficient base.
Four criteria for scoring
The model suggests scoring each item by operational impact, mitigated risk, technical dependency, and validation effort. That mix avoids prioritizing only what is visible or only what is easy.
What matters is how a task moves the full system, not just one demo moment.
What unfairly falls to the bottom
Permissions, source cleanup, observability, and feedback loops often get pushed down because they do not shine in presentation. Yet they are the items that most prevent deterioration when real usage grows.
A mature backlog protects reliability before showmanship.
How to use prioritization without rigidity
The model is not trying to freeze the backlog. It is trying to create a common basis for discussion across business, product, and technical teams. It should be reviewed as usage, corpus, or constraints change.
Good prioritization is not the one that never changes. It is the one that changes with explicit criteria.
Unlock the full article
Sign in with your Kodex community account to keep reading.
.jpg)