Map evidence to a calibrated rating by weighing goals, behavior, impact, and context.
Dana must justify "meets strongly" when Jules exceeded two goals and missed one critical goal. Weight goals by importance, evidence by strength, and context by relevance. The common trap is averaging the evidence emotionally: two wins minus one miss equals a vague middle. Calibration needs sharper logic. Map goals Efficiency goals exceeded; enterprise-readiness goal missed. Enterprise readiness carried the largest business risk. SMART goals are not equal weights by default. Importance and consequence affect rating logic. Test evidence Efficiency metrics improved 11% and 9%; readiness missed the launch gate by three weeks and delayed two customer migrations. The evidence shows…
Sign up free — one personalized lesson every day, matched to your role and goals.
Already have an account? Sign in