How to use a Righthand with PostHog
Prepare a reviewed analytics-identity exception notebook from approved PostHog inputs, with a worked example, complete brief, access checks, and reconciliation.
Quick answer
Use approved PostHog event and insight extracts to prepare an identity exception notebook for the analytics owner. The task should distinguish event occurrences from the people or groups used by the accepted report, rather than silently merging identities.
Start with a analytics-identity exception notebook that the analytics owner can check against the original records. Righthand prepares the review artifact; the source application remains the operational record.
Establish the input route
PostHog’s product analytics guide describes analysis based on the events a product sends, together with associated person information and properties. Official PostHog reference, checked October 6, 2026.
Have the analyst provide the intended project, report definition, permitted event slice, and approved identity rules. A connected read must be checked for the actual operation and scope. Avoid fetching session content when event references alone can answer this identity review.
Check the current integration directory and Righthand setup documentation. A listed app does not establish every read or write action. For a connected route, verify the assigned account, available operation, object scope, and one permitted sample read. This guide also works from an explicitly supplied, approved extract; it does not require an unverified native operation. Keep credentials out of the article brief.
Worked input and output
These three records are synthetic illustrations, not customer results or a hands-on integration test.
| Approved input | Proposed review output |
|---|---|
| PH81: same identity triggers signup twice | Retain two event occurrences; ask how the report counts that identity |
| PH82: anonymous and later identified references differ | Flag mapping question under the approved identity rule |
| PH83: test environment event matches production event name | Keep project/environment context separate before comparison |
The notebook should expose a concrete identity question and the source that could answer it. PH81 is not automatically two signups by two people. PH82 does not authorize merging records based on similar properties. PH83 preserves environment context so a familiar event name cannot contaminate the selected production slice.
A complete first-run brief
Use an approved PostHog event extract and insight definition for October 12–16, 2026. Fields: project reference, event reference, event name, distinct identity reference, person/group rule, timestamp, property filter, report unit. At Monday 9 AM America/Los_Angeles, prepare a analytics-identity exception notebook as source-linked Markdown in my private review thread. Preserve record identities and the extract timestamp. Group unresolved items by next action and responsible owner. Reviewer: analytics owner. Do not merge identities, change tracking, alter feature flags, expose session content, or infer individual traits. Result check: Compare event counts and the report’s chosen identity unit; independently inspect every proposed mapping question.
A permitted preparation step does not authorize a consequential write or an external send. Resolve proposed changes through the app's supported process after the responsible owner approves their exact scope.
Reconcile before widening the task
A renamed event and a repeated event can look similar in a list but require different corrections. Preserve original event names and timestamps. An incomplete identity extract is insufficient for a claim about unique users; request the authoritative mapping evidence instead of estimating.
Trial the notebook against one insight with its analyst. Have the owner explain PH81’s count treatment and PH82’s mapping gap. Keep tracking or identity corrections as separate approved work, then compare a fresh source before declaring the issue resolved.
For the first acceptance review, keep the original input slice beside the result and mark which items were checked. If access or evidence is incomplete, return that gap with its record identity rather than a confident completion statement. Review Pricing using the actual preparation workload and correction effort.