## TL;DR
Fix this in AskNicely NPS workflow by acting on the exact problem first: fix the branch lookup on the workflow so the follow-up reads the location from the response contact record instead of the account headquarters location, correct the queued messages for responses from the affected branch, and test with a response from each branch before re enabling the workflow. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one response, batch or record set first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

```text
AskNicely NPS workflow sends follow-up message to the wrong branch location
```

## Use this when
- The operation in AskNicely NPS workflow fails with this exact problem or symptom: AskNicely NPS workflow sends follow-up message to the wrong branch location.
- The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
- NPS follow-up, routing or reporting is blocked until this item completes.

## Not for this skill when
- The message is an outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
- The operation completes and you only disagree with its output quality. That is a quality review, not this failure.

## Steps
1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in AskNicely NPS workflow, and copy the full problem plus the response, contact or job involved into the run notes. Verify: the problem is reproduced on demand with a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: fix the branch lookup on the workflow so the follow-up reads the location from the response contact record instead of the account headquarters location, correct the queued messages for responses from the affected branch, and test with a response from each branch before re enabling the workflow. Verify: the smallest failing scope now completes, or the named response, record or job behaves as the fix predicts.
3. Check the neighbouring responses, records or jobs that share the same config, segment or credential, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in AskNicely NPS workflow on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result counts or status against the source in AskNicely NPS workflow so a silent partial success is caught before sign off. Verify: counts match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

## Why it happens
Multi location accounts default to a headquarters branch in the workflow lookup, so every follow-up inherits that branch even when the customer answered about a different location.

## Variant phrasings

### AskNicely NPS workflow sends follow-up message to the wrong branch location
The verbatim form searchers paste from the console or report. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the full rerun.

### How to fix - AskNicely NPS workflow sends follow-up message to the wrong branch location
The how-to phrasing for the same failure in AskNicely NPS workflow. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

### AskNicely NPS workflow troubleshooting for this failure
The symptom-first phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Compatibility: AskNicely NPS workflow at current versions, plus the platform API or console the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Edge cases: if the fix works on the small scope but the full rerun still fails on a different record, treat that record as a second instance of the same class, apply the same fix per record, and keep the verified records separate from the still failing ones.

## Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_6HC3yFr0jbRyEdMo5RQzSw