Docs fix — coherence: path /solutions/observability/streams — 2 findings

Generated by `gh-aw-docs-coherence-sweep` for `elastic/docs-content` on 2026-W24.

Path `/solutions/observability/streams` · 31 total in scope · subtree corpus 31 pages.

## Findings (2)

```yaml
- file: solutions/observability/streams/management/data-quality.md
line: 60
category: contradictory-content
severity: high
evidence: >
states 'select **Enable failure store** in the **Failed documents**
component' (implying the Data quality tab) as the way to turn on failure
stores; the published retention page says 'You can enable failure stores
from the **Retention** tab by selecting **Enable failure store**'.
Both pages also state that from this entry point 'you can set your
failure store retention period', so they each present a complete and
independent path to the same action but in different Streams tabs.
related_url: https://www.elastic.co/docs/solutions/observability/streams/management/retention
suggested_fix: |
Determine the canonical UI entry point for enabling failure stores.
If only one tab offers the button, remove the incorrect instruction
from the other page and add a cross-reference. If both tabs genuinely
expose the button, update both pages to acknowledge both paths and
cross-link each other so users are not surprised when they find the
button in one tab but not the other.

- file: solutions/observability/streams/management/data-quality.md
line: 43
category: near-duplicate
severity: low
evidence: >
Defines the Good/Degraded/Poor quality tiers using the same 0% / 0-3%
/ >3% thresholds as the published Data Set Quality page, but with
different calculation logic: this page scores quality on *both*
degraded docs *and* failed docs ('Good: Both the Degraded documents
percentage and the Failed documents percentage are 0'), whereas the
published Data Set Quality page scores on degraded documents only
('Good: 0% of the documents in the data set are degraded'). An AI
assistant queried about data quality thresholds would return
conflicting answers depending on which page it hits.
related_url: https://www.elastic.co/docs/solutions/observability/data-set-quality-monitoring
suggested_fix: |
Add a short explanatory note near the quality-calculation table in
data-quality.md (and ideally a reciprocal note on the Data Set Quality
page) clarifying that the Streams Data quality tab includes failed
documents in its score, whereas the standalone Data Set Quality
monitoring page measures degraded documents only. A brief cross-link
between the two pages would also help readers understand the
intentional difference.
```

## Done when
- Contradictions are reconciled, with one page as source of truth.
- Duplicate content is consolidated or replaced with a cross-link.
- A PR addressing this issue is merged.

> Generated by [Docs coherence sweep agent](https://github.com/elastic/docs-content/actions/runs/27333979169) · 669.9 AIC · ⌖ 13.2 AIC · ⊞ 26.4K · [◷](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aelastic%2Fdocs-content+is%3Aissue+%22gh-aw-workflow-call-id%3A+elastic%2Fdocs-content%2Fgh-aw-docs-coherence-sweep%22&type=issues)