Count Feedback Themes Once Per Response, With the Denominator Visible — Free
A response mentioning a theme three times is still one response mentioning that theme. Enter anonymous codes and human-assigned themes to count incidence once, disclose unentered records and keep overlapping themes out of a misleading hundred-percent pie.
The proof surface
Proposal question maps help one resident prepare questions. This chart supports neutral aggregate service-feedback reporting: deduplicated response/theme pairs, received-versus-coded counts, explicit blanks and no automatic sentiment or political inference.
Inputanonymous response code | theme codes separated by commas, or - | channel label; total responses received, including uncoded responses
Rare deviceProposal question maps help one resident prepare questions. This chart supports neutral aggregate service-feedback reporting: deduplicated response/theme pairs, received-versus-coded counts, explicit blanks and no automatic sentiment or political inference.
Output artifactEntered responses with at least one theme with row-by-row context
Cost$0 local calculation · no card, paid key, subscription or signup · proposed filing price is not for sale
Sample, not your facts: Illustrative inputs: R01 | hours, seating | paper; R02 | seating | online; R03 | hours, hours | email; R04 | - | paper. Total responses received, including uncoded responses = 10. Entered responses with at least one theme: 3 coded responses. All records are invented.
Before using the response-incidence chart
Create a small coding guide before tallying comments. For a library service review, codes might distinguish hours, seating and signage without labeling a resident’s identity, politics or motivation. Apply the guide consistently and retain the original feedback in whatever lawful, approved system already holds it—not in this tool. The row accepts only an anonymous response code, theme codes and a broad channel label. One response can legitimately carry several themes, so incidence totals can exceed the response count. That is not an error when the denominator is stated. It would be an error to describe theme incidences as mutually exclusive votes or as a representative population survey. The local tally preserves human judgment and makes the count audit simple; it does not replace research design or consultation governance.
Why the flat version breaks
Counting repeated words as repeated respondents
A theme listed twice in one row contributes one response/theme pair. Counting repetitions would let writing style change the apparent number of respondents.
Using coded responses as the received total
The denominator includes blanks and not-yet-entered records. Replacing it with only convenient coded records can inflate the apparent incidence.
Forcing multi-theme shares into one pie
One response can mention hours and seating. Their shares overlap; a sum above one hundred percent is possible and is not an exclusive-choice distribution.
How to work the response-incidence chart
Code themes with a human guide
Choose short non-sensitive theme names under a consistent guide. A comma separates themes and a dash marks an explicitly uncoded response. The app will not classify raw comments, infer sentiment or assign people to groups.
Use one anonymous code per received response
Duplicate response codes are rejected across rows. Repeated theme codes within one row are deduplicated without case differences. Channel labels such as paper or online provide context without collecting personal identifiers.
Keep the received denominator
Each theme’s incidence is distinct entered responses with that theme divided by total received responses. The headline counts responses with any code. Explicit blanks and received-but-unentered records are separately disclosed; missing records are not silently coded as no theme.
Report the limits with the chart
Say recorded incidence when coding is incomplete, and note that themes overlap. Have the consultation coordinator or a qualified analyst review coding and denominators before publication. Do not call these counts votes, approval rates or population sentiment.
What the response-incidence chart separates
Question
Before
Inspect this instead
Counting repeated words as repeated respondents
A theme listed twice in one row contributes one response/theme pair. Counting repetitions would let writing style change the apparent number of respondents.
Use one anonymous code per received response
Using coded responses as the received total
The denominator includes blanks and not-yet-entered records. Replacing it with only convenient coded records can inflate the apparent incidence.
Keep the received denominator
Forcing multi-theme shares into one pie
One response can mention hours and seating. Their shares overlap; a sum above one hundred percent is possible and is not an exclusive-choice distribution.
Report the limits with the chart
This response-incidence chart replaces a manual count or calculation, not source verification or the responsible person’s review.
Run it on the samples, right here
FIRST-LOAD
HYPOTHESIS / PROTOTYPE — checkout unavailable. Calculation is local. A draft is saved automatically in this browser profile when storage is available; Reset to sample clears it. Optional Pro history stores only five summaries and has its own deletion control. State links encode your inputs and can remain in browser history, clipboard or recipients’ records; share only non-sensitive rows. Optional external AI formatting leaves this device. The required site analytics beacon reports page activity; shared URLs contain encoded inputs. Do not treat an encoded URL as private. The calculator has no input-collection endpoint.
Anonymous coding-count arithmetic only, not political profiling, public-opinion inference, legal consultation compliance or a representative survey analysis. No raw comments or personal identifiers are needed. Have the consultation coordinator or a qualified analyst review the coding guide, missing records and reporting language before publishing; do not treat incomplete incidence counts as votes or consensus.
Data note: The response-incidence chart processes anonymous response code | theme codes separated by commas, or - | channel label locally. Starter/sample selection and Run compute in this tab; no input is sent by the calculator. A local draft may be saved; explicit state-link sharing or optional external AI formatting can disclose inputs. Use non-sensitive labels.
Go deeper: the companion app files the same reading as a plotted bar chart sheet
The article demo above runs without limits. The companion app keeps a local history, exports the rows as CSV, prints the response-incidence chart reading, and holds your drafts on this device — one complete free app run; the proposed $4 one-time filing layer is not for sale.
The response-incidence chart answer stays complete for free. The proposed $4 one-time filing layer adds row CSV, print and five local reading summaries, not hidden answers. Checkout is unavailable; the article demo remains unlimited.
Anonymous coding-count arithmetic only, not political profiling, public-opinion inference, legal consultation compliance or a representative survey analysis. No raw comments or personal identifiers are needed. Have the consultation coordinator or a qualified analyst review the coding guide, missing records and reporting language before publishing; do not treat incomplete incidence counts as votes or consensus.
What this is built on
Method: Each theme’s incidence is distinct entered responses with that theme divided by total received responses. The headline counts responses with any code. Explicit blanks and received-but-unentered records are separately disclosed; missing records are not silently coded as no theme.
All sample records, dates, quantities and labels are invented. No outside policy, contract, rate, clock offset, measurement or accessibility standard is represented as verified.
Google’s official pricing documentation, fetched 2026-09-30, says AI Studio is free in available regions. Optional formatting may require a Google account; manual local entry requires none. Limits can change and free-tier content may be used to improve products. Do not send private records.
Before: repeated theme codes could look like additional respondents. After: deduplicated response/theme pairs and missing received records remain separate from votes or consensus.
Setting: Total responses received, including uncoded responses = 10. Expected summary: 3 coded responses.
Three entered responses have at least one theme and one is explicitly uncoded. Hours appears in R01 and R03, so it has two recorded mentions out of ten received responses, twenty percent. Repeating hours inside R03 does not create another respondent. Seating also has two recorded mentions. Six received responses are not entered, and the result says so: these are recorded incidences, not the final distribution of the entire consultation. Theme percentages can overlap and must not be added as if they were exclusive answers.
Sample B — changed plan
R01 | hours | online
R02 | hours | paper
R03 | - | email
R04 | - | paper
Setting: Total responses received, including uncoded responses = 10. Expected summary: 2 coded responses.
Only two entered responses now have codes, both hours. The coded-response total falls to two while the hours incidence remains two out of ten. Two explicit blanks are different from six responses not yet entered. Keeping those states separate prevents an organizer from treating unreviewed feedback as an absence of concern. The tool does not read or classify the original comments; humans choose the theme codes under a consistent coding guide.
Sample C — boundary convention
R01 | - | paper
R02 | - | email
Setting: Total responses received, including uncoded responses = 10. Expected summary: 0 coded responses.
Two explicitly uncoded responses and no theme codes produce zero coded responses. The page still shows a useful no-themes record and reports eight received responses not entered. Zero coded responses is not zero feedback and does not establish agreement, satisfaction or lack of interest. A denominator smaller than the number of entered unique responses is rejected, because it would create impossible percentages. Use the actual aggregate receipt count, not a desired survey result.
Optional AI formatting, never the calculation
Manual entry completes this response-incidence chart for free without signup. If available to you, the free AI Studio interface linked in the sources may format fictional or non-sensitive notes; external access may require an account. No API key or AI call is built into this tool. Free-tier content may be used to improve products. Review each cell and transcribe it to the labeled row schema; do not paste the JSON object into the row box.
Format only these fictional or non-sensitive notes for a response-incidence chart. Return strict JSON shaped as {"rows": [{"label": "string", "cells": ["string", "string"]}], "setting": "string"}. The columns are anonymous response code | theme codes separated by commas, or - | channel label; the setting is Total responses received, including uncoded responses. Keep all supplied strings and quantities exactly; do not calculate, infer missing entries, invent dates or add advice. If any required value is missing, return an empty rows array and ask me for it separately. I will verify every cell against my source and manually transcribe rows using vertical bars before running the local calculator.
An AI response is not executed, fetched or trusted as a result. Missing values remain questions; the strict local parser checks the rows you actually enter.