Quick answer
The Gravity Flow {workflow_note} merge tag supplies the latest note, not a complete collection of every reviewer's comments. Check the entry timeline before declaring earlier notes lost. If the recipient needs a full review history, design an authorized summary or history access path instead of assuming one merge tag provides an audit report.
Check storage before changing the notification
Open the affected entry using an account authorized to view its history. Compare the notes, reviewers, and timestamps with the message that was sent. Record only the minimum evidence needed to establish whether the missing comments are present. Do not copy confidential assessments into a public support ticket.
Separate three questions: did the reviewer enter a note, did the step save it, and did the outgoing template select it? A message is a presentation of selected data, not a complete inventory of everything stored. Earlier comments can exist even when the template shows only the last one.
Identify the exact template and send event
Find the notification name and configured event that produced the message. Check the template itself for {workflow_note} or other fields. Similar-looking emails may come from different steps, and a message sent before every reviewer completes has a different context from a message sent after the final review.
Record the step's assignee policy and note requirements. Do not change those rules just to obtain a longer email. A report should describe the approved review process; it should not silently change how many people must participate or when a business decision becomes effective.
Use a small fictional reviewer test
Create an isolated staging fixture with three reviewers and short non-sensitive markers such as Review-A, Review-B, and Review-C. Record the order of their actions. Capture the outgoing notification, then compare its selected note with the authorized entry timeline. Keep all external messages and integrations away from production recipients.
Repeat in a different completion order if the business depends on multiple participants. The purpose is to understand which value the message selects, not to manufacture a passing result. Mark any missing saved note separately from a note that exists but is outside the template's selection.
Define what the recipient actually needs
An internal manager may need the full history. A customer may need only the approved conclusion. A downstream system may need a structured status and a reference ID rather than unfiltered commentary. Write down those distinct outputs before adding fields or changing merge tags.
For each output, identify the audience, permitted content, responsible reviewer, and update behavior. Include whether later corrections should generate another message or remain in the entry history. This prevents a convenient summary from becoming an unreviewed disclosure channel for private assessments.
Choose an authorized summary or history path
A practical design may keep the complete history in the restricted entry view while a designated reviewer writes a separate approved summary. Another organization may need a controlled export through documented tooling. Verify the installed product's supported options rather than inventing a merge tag that promises all notes.
If custom code is necessary, give the implementer explicit requirements for ordering, author attribution, missing values, permissions, and escaping. Test fictional content containing punctuation and HTML-like text so a comment is rendered safely. Do not insert raw review content into an email without considering its audience and output format.
Keep the audit meaning clear
Label a latest-note email as an update, not a complete review record. If a team uses the message as evidence of approval, include the actual approved outcome and responsible process, subject to the organization's rules. A final comment alone is not proof that every required participant completed a review.
After changing the template, verify a complete review, a pending review, and a later correction. Check who can open any linked history and whether expired or forwarded access links reveal more than intended. Keep the original configuration and redacted test results with the change record. The correct fix preserves useful review history while giving each audience only the information it needs.
Illustrative diagnostic example, not customer measurements.When to bring in help
Use workflow reporting support when a team needs a reviewed summary or a controlled export of several reviewers' feedback. Bring a fictional example and the intended audience. Avoid forwarding private entry links or raw customer notes simply to demonstrate the missing-message symptom.
Related troubleshooting
Keep review notes out of customer-facing messages.
Helpful references
Gravity Flow User Input settings.