Reading everything is how nobody reads anything
Open the full log and the first thing you notice is how many conversations went fine. This is genuinely reassuring for about ten minutes, after which it becomes tedious, and shortly after that the review stops happening at all. The habit dies from boredom rather than from lack of time.
The underlying error is treating the log as a sample to be surveyed. It is not. It is a pile containing a small number of informative items and a large number of uninformative ones, and the whole skill is separating them before you start reading rather than while you read.
So filter first, always. Three filters cover almost everything worth finding, and each of them produces a pile small enough to read properly. If your tooling cannot produce these filters, that is worth more than most feature comparisons, because a log you cannot filter is a log nobody will read twice.
Pile one: conversations that ended in a refusal
A refusal is the system telling you it had nothing. Every one is a documented gap between what a visitor wanted and what you have published, already labelled as such, which makes this the cheapest pile to act on.
Read the question, not the refusal. The refusal wording is the same every time and tells you nothing. What you want is the vocabulary in the question and whether your material contains that vocabulary anywhere. Frequently the topic is covered and the words are not, which is a rewriting job rather than a writing job and takes twenty minutes instead of a morning.
Sort the pile by whether the material should have covered it. Should have covered and did not is a content gap. Should not have covered is a correct refusal and needs no action, except to confirm the handover was offered. Being ruthless about that split is what keeps the pile from becoming a backlog nobody works.
Pile two: the visitor asked the same thing twice
Somebody rephrasing and asking again has told you the first answer failed, without pressing a button. This is the most reliable dissatisfaction signal you will get and it costs the visitor nothing to produce.
The value is in the pair. Read the first phrasing and the second together. The second is closer to what they actually meant, and the distance between them shows you where your material's language and your customers' language diverge. Over a few weeks these pairs form a vocabulary list that is worth more than any keyword research, because it comes from people who were already trying to buy from you or already had a problem.
Watch for the specific pattern where the second question is shorter and blunter than the first. That is usually somebody losing patience, and if the third message is a request for a person, you have found a maze in your handover.
Pile three: the conversation stopped abruptly
An answer, then nothing. No follow up, no rating, no handover. This pile is ambiguous by nature, which is why most people skip it, and it is where the quiet failures live.
Read the last answer the assistant gave and ask one question: is this answer correct and complete for the question above it. Sometimes it plainly is, and the person got what they needed and left, which is the outcome you want. Sometimes it is subtly wrong, or answers a nearby question rather than the one asked, and the visitor left because it was not worth arguing with.
This pile is the only one that catches confidently wrong answers, because a confidently wrong answer produces no refusal, no rephrase and no complaint. It just ends. That is why it is worth reading despite being the least satisfying of the three.
Turning a pile into an edit
Finish every session with a written list of changes, not a feeling. The list should be short and each item should name the material to change and roughly what to change about it. A review that produces no list did not happen, whatever the calendar says.
Most items will be one of four kinds: add a page for a topic nothing covers, add customer vocabulary to a page that covers the topic in your own words, correct something that is out of date, or add an escalation rule for a category that should not be answered at all. If an item does not fit one of those, look at it again, because it may be a wish rather than a change.
Then close the loop. Note when the change was published, and check the same filter the following week to see whether the pattern stopped. Reviews that never verify their own fixes tend to meet the same gap again for months, because writing something is not the same as retrieval finding it.
What to do with the ones that went fine
Read a small handful, occasionally, for a different purpose: to check the tone and to make sure nothing correct-looking is actually wrong. This is a sampling exercise rather than a review, and it should take a few minutes rather than an hour.
The one thing successful conversations are genuinely good for is finding what to promote. If the same question is answered well several times a day, that answer probably deserves to be on the page rather than only in a chat window, because most people never open the widget at all.
Otherwise leave them alone. They consume the attention budget that should go to the three piles, and the pull to read them is strong precisely because they are pleasant.
Who should do the reading
Somebody who answers these questions for a living, not somebody who owns the tool. A support agent reading the refusal pile spots a wrong answer in seconds because they know the correct one. Somebody from marketing or engineering reading the same pile sees a plausible paragraph.
It also has to be somebody with the ability to change the material, or with a short path to somebody who can. Log review that produces a list which then sits in a queue for a month stops happening, for entirely rational reasons.
Keep the group small and the session short. One person, one hour, once a week, with a written list at the end, sustained for a quarter, will improve an assistant more than any amount of configuration tuning. It is unglamorous and it is the whole job.