Product Communities

The Offer notification (offerMgt) technical workflow fails with the below error, though no changes have been done since the past 1 month. It was working fine until 10 days ago.09/21/2026 10:19:00 PM        Notification delivered using scenario 'notifySupervisor' (in action of identifier 854569646).09/21/2026 10:18:59 PM    js    SCR-160012 JavaScript: error while evaluating script 'offerMgt/js'.09/21/2026 10:18:59 PM    js    SOP-330011 Error while executing the method 'Publish' of service 'nms:offerSpace'.09/21/2026 10:18:59 PM    js    Deployment finished

Workfront currently logs that a custom form was edited/resaved, but it does not provide granular details about what changed (for example, when custom field validation logic is removed/modified, when a calculated field formula changes, or when field configuration is updated). This makes it difficult for admins to investigate unexpected configuration changes, determine whether a change was accidental, and prevent recurrence—especially when changes appear across environments (e.g., sandbox and production) and require manual rebuild. Please add an admin-level audit history for custom form and custom field configuration that records:What changed (before/after snapshot or diff of validation rules, formulas, field settings, and form layout) Who changed it (user) When it changed (timestamp) Where it changed (environment and object: form name, field name) Ability to report on these changes (e.g., via a journal/audit report) and optionally export the history This would enable admins to quickly t

We need functionality in Planning that would allow new records entered in a planning space to go through an approval flow. To work around this, we’re using fusion to submit via Workflow and then send the plans to a Planning space. Feels like this could be much more efficient and there would be good several use cases for this. 

Has anyone Started their EDS implementation with the DA boilerplate and later realised they should have used the xwalk boilerplate for UE and then tried to retrofit the first with the second…Im running into an issue where my preview/live pages are hitting the following error: (404) Unable to fetch /index.md from html2md.I’ve set the content source to the correct /bin/franklin.delivery/amp-digital-aem/amp-eds/main/ path in my AEM environment. I’ve installed the UE template into the same environment. (althought the template did not include a ‘configuration’ page). My paths.json:{  "mappings": [    "/content/amp-eds/:/",    "/content/amp-eds/configuration:/.helix/config.json"  ],  "includes": [    "/content/amp-eds/"  ]}My config is also missing:content.source.suffix = .html  Im unsure how to add this. any help or guidance would be appreciated.

We cannot get the Computed Attributes Value Distribution to show anything except non-zero values. This remains true even after confirming that the Computed Attribute is evaluating and complete. In addition to the Value Distribution showing zeros, each of the shown sample profiles also shows a value of 0 for this Computed Attribute. This initially led us to believe there was something wrong with the underlying logic of the Computed Attribute itself. However we pulled one of our own ECIDs and checked the associated profile within CDP and we were able to confirm that the profile has a value of '9' for the attribute, which seems plausible We were recently informed by Ultimate Support that a minimum success rate of 30% is required for Computed Attributes. This is also where we learned that the 30% was not only a minimum threshold for the Value Distribution/Sample Profiles QA piece, but also for getting the Computed Attribute in and of itself to populate at all. This is an extremely high tar

AEM Sites modernization is moving beyond manually rebuilding every page and component.With AI-assisted modernization, teams can potentially accelerate activities such as:Migrating content from legacy websites or CMS platforms Mapping page structures to reusable blocks Applying design-system patterns Creating new Edge Delivery Services pages Making style and template updates Previewing changes before deploymentBut migration speed alone does not define a successful implementation.A site can be migrated quickly and still create long-term challenges if:The content model does not match the authoring workflow Page structures are converted into non-reusable blocks SEO metadata, URLs or redirects are missed Accessibility and responsive behavior are not properly validated Integrations, personalization, search or commerce logic are overlooked The final site looks visually correct but is difficult to maintainThe current AEM Experience Modernization Agent approach is interesting because it combine

Hey Target practitioners, we recently shipped two new popularity-based criteria in Adobe Target Recommendations: Most Viewed by Profile Attribute and Top Sellers by Profile Attribute. In this post I want to walk through what these criteria do, how they differ from the existing popularity options, what kinds of personalization scenarios they make possible and finally an end-to-end example showing how this feature can be used.A short video walkthrough of the complete setup is available here: Feature Walkthrough VideoWhat was already there What is new Use cases Setting it up: an end-to-end example DocumentationWhat was already thereTarget already provided several popularity-based criteria covering two signals (most viewed and top sellers) across three scopes:  Most Viewed Top Sellers Across the site Most Viewed Across the Site Top Sellers Across the Site By item category Most Viewed by Category Top Sellers by Category By item attribute Most Viewed by Item Attribute Top

AEM Sites is evolving with multiple authoring and delivery approaches. Universal Editor is becoming an important option for new projects, especially those using Edge Delivery Services or headless architectures. At the same time, Page Editor remains supported and continues to be relevant for many existing traditional AEM Sites implementations.However, choosing between Page Editor and Universal Editor is not only an editor decision. It can also affect:Authoring experience Front-end development approach Performance expectations Content governance and workflows Templates, styles and responsive layouts Integrations and custom dialogs Migration and maintenance effortI would like to know the community's practical experience:For a new AEM Sites project, which approach would you choose—Page Editor, Universal Editor, or another authoring model? If you have an existing Page Editor implementation, would you consider moving to Universal Editor? Why or why not? For teams using Universal Editor with

The customer Journey Management > message Execution field group physically exists in both the AJO message feedback schema and the AJO email tracking schema. I can see the field in the tracking schema and build a CJA report against it. But at runtime, the value is never actually populated on tracking events.Since opens are tracking events, and tracking events never carries messageExecution. metadata, any CJA report keyed on that metadata for opens/clicks will be blank.I tried identity stitching for tracking and feedback events datasets in CJA with an Identity Map as EID in both datasets. But still unable to see engagement metrics (email opens and email clicks) when using the metadata LOB value filter for email opens and clicks in Email Journey Reporting in CJA. Is anyone facing a similar issue in CJA?       

If you have a follow-up question from the Skill Exchange session Reporting Hidden Gems: 10 Tips That Will Save Time and Impress Leadership with Daniel Clarke (@daniel_clarke) from EMMsphere that originally aired on August 5, 2026, you're in the right place! Leave your comment below and our speakers will do their best to reply. And if you see a question below that you know the answer to, don't be shy! We'd love for you to answer from your own experience and perspective. Have questions about another Skill Exchange session? You can see the full list of discussion threads here. On-Demand Viewing - This session is now available on-demand, you can find the recording here. 

Hi community,I would like to ask for help and advice regarding the following: is it possible to somehow export all Workfront configurations of a client's instance (custom forms, access levels config, projects config, etc.) and import it back to Workfront? In case a client won't use Workfront anymore, but might decides to use it again in the future, to avoid building things from scratch.Would love to hear similar experiences and best practices! Thank you.

If you’re part of our trial & looking for help in the community - you’re in the right place!  Access to the product is here: https://coworker-campaigns.experience.adobe.com/home If you’re on the waitlist and waiting to be approved, leave us a message here.If you’ve received access, and are in the product and actively trying it out - CONGRATS!!  You too, can use this space to ask questions, leave feedback or share excitement with anything you loved or what you’ve worked on - we’re here for all it 📣

This feature only works with Campaign Orchestration?Enable change data capture for source connections in the API | Adobe Experience Platform

This is turn on. It collects automatically all clicks in AJO web campaigns in Offer Decisioning campaigns in Web? 

I need to delete two XDM schemas in a development sandbox and I've hit what looks like a closed loop. Hoping someone has been here before.What I'm trying to doSome field paths in our dev sandbox differ from prod by character case only - for example campaignUseCase1 in dev versus CampaignUsecase1 in prod. Since XDM field paths are immutable once created, I understand the fix is to rebuild the field group and schemas correctly rather than edit them in place.Where it breaksI can't create the correctly-cased fields while the incorrect ones exist, because both paths would land in the same Profile union and AEP rejects paths that differ only by case. So the old objects have to go first.But:I can't delete the field group - two schemas compose it. I can't delete those schemas - both are Profile (union) enabled. I can't disable Profile in the UI - the toggle is there but Save stays greyed out. I can't remove the union tag via API. PATCH on the schema with {"op": "remove", "path": "/meta:immutab

We’re always looking for ways to improve your experience in AEM Sites Optimizer and would like to speak with customers who are hands-on in the product. Who we’re looking for✓ Current AEM Sites Optimizer users✓ Users who work with content authoring, code authoring, or both✓ Users who have recently made an optimization using the recommendations provided by AEM Sites Optimizer What we ask of participants45 - 60 minutes of your time to share your process for completing a recent optimization and answer interviewer questionsTimelineSign-up window: Today through September 25 Interviews running this week and nextHow to participateClick here to schedule a session with our research team. Please reach out if you don’t see a time that works for you.Questions?Ask below — the product team will be monitoring this thread throughout the sign-up period.

Working with Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) queries? Try my new AEM Query Builder Converter to easily convert between SQL2 and Query Builder syntax and Convert SQL2 ↔ Query Builder in seconds. 🔐 Privacy-first by design❌ No AI involved❌ No customer/client data is stored🌐 Everything is processed directly in your browser✅ You can safely paste and work with actual client queries🔄 Convert between SQL2 and Query Builder quickly and easily 👉 Try it here: https://www.aemcq5tutorials.com/tools/aem-query-converter/ The goal was to create a practical tool that AEM developers can use without worrying about exposing sensitive query data. I’d love to hear your feedback! 🙌If you work with AEM Query Builder or JCR-SQL2, give it a try and let me know what you think, what could be improved, or what other features would be useful.Feel free to share it with other AEM developers who might find it useful.  

Browse the full archive of the Coworker for Marketo Engage and MCP Server Office Hours. These recurring office hours sessions feature Adobe experts from the Marketo Engage product organization walking through new features, answering live customer questions, and sharing best practices. Sign-up for Coworker for Marketo Engage and MCP Server Officer Hours UI Updates, Starter Prompts, Skills Roadmap, Callable Agents, Marketo Optimizer Positioning, MCP Server Automation, RBAC Controls, Email Creation, Reporting - Coworker for Marketo Engage and MCP Server Office Hours - September 10, 2026 Coworker Rebranding, UI Updates, UX Issues, Program Validation Configuration, CX Coworker Integration, Callable Agents, Analytics Skills, MCP Server Enhancements - Coworker for Marketo Engage and MCP Server Office Hours - September 3, 2026 Roadmap Updates, Callable Agents, Campaign and Program Buildin, Permissions and API Quotas, Reporting Limitations, Data Movement, Connector Expansion - Coworker for M

Summary: The meeting covered the rebranding of Marketo AI to Coworker for Marketo Engage, UI and experience updates, current and upcoming AI skills, and Marketo Engage MCP Server automation enhancements. Key themes included clearer product alignment with Adobe’s CX Coworker strategy, improved workspace navigation, future personalized prompts, expanding campaign and program capabilities, and broader MCP tooling for prompt-based automation.AI-generated topics with timestamps1:41 — Product rebranding and positioning: Marketo AI has been rebranded to Coworker for Marketo Engage to align with Adobe’s broader CX Coworker strategy, while core functionality remains unchanged.2:59 — UI and experience updates: Users now land directly in a workspace/tree view instead of the previous chat-first experience, with asset search in the tree and updated permissions naming.3:50 — Branding and starter prompts: The interface includes updated branding labels and contextual starter prompts intended to suppor

Summary: The meeting covered the rebranding of Marketo AI to Coworker for Marketo Engage, UI updates, current UX issues, configuration options for program validation, future CX Coworker integration, callable agent development, new analytics skills, Marketo Engage MCP Server enhancements, and recording availability.2:35 — Product naming and UI changes: Marketo AI was renamed Coworker for Marketo Engage to align with Adobe CX Coworker branding, while core functionality remains unchanged; the landing page is also being removed so users enter the main home screen directly, with future personalized prompts planned based on user and instance activity.6:48 — UX feedback and issues: A navigation issue with collapsing the chat or skill panel caused confusion and unresponsiveness in some flows, and the team acknowledged it as an issue needing a fix.8:50 — Configuration and validation rules: Validate Programs organizational rules are currently configured through a settings icon using markdown tex