Enable separate alternatives lists for +ve and -ve

I remember a discussion on predefined answers on "yes" back in ~2019 and we reached the verdict that it was not helpful to the authors, since all positive feedback is roughly the same. The discussion was internal (team and client) back then, while working on a huge FAQ system applied on about 60 installations. We put a good time thinking what we wanted from this module and from there the patch and v2 of the module came true.

Even in your examples:

This taught me exactly what I needed to know

and

Spot on! Clearly explained and easy to follow

they are mostly the same and both of them can be true at the same time.
What more, they don't help the article improve.
It was our verdict back then that a free-form comment could help, but predefined answers on yes not that much.

Answers on "no" are very different, you can have "out of context", "outdated", "does not apply" etc, which clearly help the author improve the article.

I'm not against such a feature, it's just that I'm not sure it offers much to the overall experience.
The code and the functionality is already there mostly, since it exists for "No". A patch should be easy to create for this one.

@Bill, →

Thankyou for the response.

OK, I see the point and it's very sound reasoning given the way the module currently works.

It's perhaps worth adding here that we have many years experience of creating training material and asking for feedback and we have found that predefined options are indeed very useful on +ve feedback.

You're quite right though, a single choices on the +ve feedback when multiple may well apply does not make sense.

HOWEVER, if we did allow predefined answers on BOTH +ve and -ve feedback but allowed for more than one by using checkboxes instead of radio buttons then we really could address feedbackers' laziness by prompting them with 'possible' responses.

In fact, with all that said, why force the option of one or the other at all, why not simple allow one or both types for both +ve and -ve - might as well be as flexible as possible?