Record the actual change, not the project name.
“ASO update” is too broad to explain what users saw. Record the store, locale, fields or assets changed and the previous and new versions. Include a link or reference to the approved copy and creative.
A useful entry allows someone outside the original project to reconstruct the change. Use a stable version identifier rather than relying on filenames that several people can overwrite.
Separate approval, submission and observation.
The date a stakeholder approves a draft is not necessarily the date it becomes visible. Record the stages that matter to the platform workflow, then verify the published result. Do not imply an exact exposure start if you did not observe one.
Use the example timeline as a record structure. Its dates are fictional and not a promise of store review time. The QA guide explains why approval belongs to a specific version.
Log competing events alongside listing edits.
Add relevant campaigns, releases, distribution changes and reporting-method changes. A performance chart becomes more interpretable when the timeline includes possible alternative explanations, not just the changes the ASO team wants credit for.
Coordinate with other owners to capture known events. Avoid collecting unnecessary personal data. The record needs the business event and responsible role, not private account credentials or user-level logs.
Attach the hypothesis and review plan.
State why the change was made and what evidence will be reviewed. If it is a correction to an inaccurate claim, say so. If it is an experiment, preserve the intended comparison and decision rule.
Use the hypothesis guide. A retrospective explanation written after seeing the result is different from a pre-recorded expectation.
Close the entry with a decision.
Add what was observed, the limits of interpretation and whether the change was kept, revised or rolled back. Keep the original entry intact so the record remains useful when the next team member investigates the same period.
Link the outcome to the report and rank observations where relevant. The log supports reasoning; it does not by itself prove causality.
