When defining Case Types in Pega Blueprint, the system generates and structures case types based on the initial problem statement and captured inputs. However:
If additional fields, data objects, or requirements are added later,
Or if the understanding of the process evolves,
there is no intelligent way to:
Re-evaluate whether the existing case types are still optimal
Suggest restructuring (merge, split, rename, or re-parent case types)
Dynamically adjust case type hierarchy based on updated context
From my point of view, Blueprint (BP) is working as intended.
The generated Case Lifecycle (or Case Type, as you mentioned) is derived from the provided business scenario and any supporting or attached documentation. Based on that input, BP proposes a lifecycle that reflects the understood business context.
If refinements are needed, there is already the option to edit the Case Type description and then use “Save and Regenerate Case Lifecycle”. This action takes the updated description into account and regenerates the lifecycle accordingly, allowing iterative improvement without losing control over the design.
Thank you for clarifying the current intended behavior of Blueprint and the regeneration mechanism.
My feature request is not about the ability to regenerate from an updated description, but rather about introducing intelligent, context-aware refinement that:
Detects incremental changes in business context
Adjusts only impacted lifecycle stages
Preserves validated design components
Provides guided refinement suggestions instead of full lifecycle regeneration
The goal is to move from static regeneration to intelligent lifecycle evolution, particularly for complex enterprise case types where full regeneration may disrupt validated design elements.
I would appreciate if this distinction could be considered when evaluating the feature request.
