{"id":"mgr-x-promotion-case-evidence","audience":"managers","category":"summarizing","track":"productivity","technique":"verification","title":"Write a promotion case that credits the right person","free":false,"task":"You're writing Nadia's promotion case for the calibration meeting. You need exactly 3 bullets, each linking one piece of evidence to a level criterion from the rubric in the form 'Criterion: evidence', under 75 words, plain text. Use only work Nadia did herself, use the corrected figure, and skip anything that isn't evidence for a criterion.","materialLabel":"Your notes and the level rubric (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"Promotion case - Nadia Reyes, Marketing Specialist -> Senior Marketing Specialist\n\nSenior level rubric (3 criteria):\n- Scope: owns a program end to end.\n- Results: moves a business metric.\n- Multiplier: makes others better.\n\nEvidence:\n- Owned the spring customer webinar series end to end: 6 webinars, from topic plan to follow-up emails.\n- Webinar series drove 410 sales-qualified leads. CORRECTION from marketing ops (May 12): 340 SQLs; 70 were duplicates.\n- Mentored 2 new hires (Leo, Ama) through their first campaigns; both shipped on time.\n- The new email template that lifted open rates 12% - that was Ama's work, Nadia reviewed it.\n- Nadia is super well-liked and always positive in meetings.\n- She's been here 3 years and was passed over last cycle.\n\nCalibration note from HR: cases should be evidence against the rubric only. Tenure and likability don't count.","rules":[{"type":"maxBullets","max":3},{"type":"maxWords","max":75},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Asking for 'a promotion case'","why":"The AI writes several paragraphs with headings and praise.","fix":"Be exact: \"Exactly 3 bullets, 'Criterion: evidence'. Plain text.\"","checks":["maxBullets","plainText"]},{"title":"Trusting the AI to count words","why":"AI is bad at counting. Ask for a total word limit and it often lands over it.","fix":"Cap each bullet instead: \"each bullet under 18 words.\"","checks":["maxWords"]},{"title":"Using the old number","why":"410 appears first, and bigger numbers look better, so the AI may keep it.","fix":"Add: \"Use the corrected figure: 340 SQLs.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Wrong credit and soft factors","why":"The template win sits next to Nadia's work, and likability sounds like a plus.","fix":"Add: \"Only Nadia's own work (not Ama's template). No tenure or likability.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Not tying evidence to the rubric","why":"The AI lists accomplishments without saying which criterion each proves.","fix":"Add: \"One bullet per criterion: Scope, Results, Multiplier.\"","checks":["r0"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Maps to the rubric","patterns":["criteri","rubric","scope","multiplier"]},{"label":"Uses the corrected figure","patterns":["340","correct"]},{"label":"Credits only her work","patterns":["ama","only (her|nadia)","her own"]},{"label":"Drops soft factors","patterns":["tenure","likab","well.liked","passed over"]},{"label":"Sets a word limit","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","word (limit|count)"]}],"hint":"Calibration rooms check evidence against the rubric. Tell the AI to map one fact to each criterion, use the corrected number, and leave out anything that isn't hers or isn't evidence.","rubricLabels":["The 3 bullets map to Scope (owned the webinar series end to end), Results (340 sales-qualified leads) and Multiplier (mentored 2 new hires who shipped on time), each in 'Criterion: evidence' form","Uses the corrected 340 SQLs, not 410","Does not credit Nadia with the email template open-rate lift (Ama's work) and leaves out tenure, being passed over and likability, with no intro or closing"]}