Update the way merging is handled

The issue involves duplicate or separate Front conversations that did not consistently merge as expected, creating a risk of double replies and missed internal communication. Front confirmed that when conversations originate in personal inboxes, each team member may have their own private copy. An @mention can trigger a Smart Merge, but only when there is no conflicting activity between the copies, such as different messages, comments, assignees, or certain tags. In the example reviewed, one conversation showed merge activity while the other showed none, despite an expectation that Smart Merge would consolidate them. Because a manual merge occurred later, Front cannot determine exactly what prevented the original Smart Merge. The main concern is understanding why these “straggler” conversations remain separate and establishing a reliable process to prevent duplicate threads, missed comments, and double replies in the future.

Suggested Front Fix: If Smart Merge detects multiple copies of a conversation but cannot merge them because of conflicting activity, Front should still flag those conversations to the users involved. Rather than simply not displaying the Smart Merge option, Front could show a notification such as “A possible duplicate conversation was detected but could not be automatically merged,” with an option to review and manually merge the conversations. This would prevent separate “straggler” threads from going unnoticed and reduce the risk of duplicate replies, especially when multiple team members receive the same client communication in personal inboxes.