The only way I can think of determining which of the multiple Supported By associations are appearing first would be to look at the underlying form, which is AST:AssetPeople I believe. You will find entries there that associate a CI, by recon id, with the support group, by group id. There is also an enumerated type field that has a particular value for Supported By (as opposed to Managed By or Used By etc).
One possibility is that the table of associations you see in the UI, is sorting the results by association type and creation date. If that's the case, then the first one appearing would probably be the first one created, based on Submit Date for the entry in that back end form. The table you see in the UI will have an defined sort order, but you will need to go into the Developer Studio, probably, to see how this is defined, and that's getting a bit beyond my knowledge level . If you are across this or have access to a Remedy developer type, checking both the underlying data and the table sort order, isn't too hard and should answer your question.
Thanks Carey. I was able to build a report and I can see the dates that shows which Supported by was added first. I can't ask users to do this as its based on a backend form and the Recon ID. It will help us answer questions, as Administrators, but isn't a usable solution for users.
I also noticed when I checked the People tab on the CI, the default sort is on Full Name, so I suppose we could change the defaults there.
Glad you can now understand how the data is being displayed. And yes, I wasn't suggesting this as something your end-users would do, simply something to help you understand.
The Full Name field can be resorted but that's just a name of either an individual or a group, so not necessarily helpful.
Have you asked BMC (via Support) if the logic for the Supported By selection is configurable based on some other attribute of the Supported By entity other than which is chronologically oldest? It's great that SR Smartflow now recognises the Supported By settings (believe it or not, until recently this setting was ignored for Incident Assignment etc), but just taking the first if there is more than one is going to result in many mis-assigned incidents