{"id":"sales-manager-promotion-case-criteria-met-not-met","audience":"managers","category":"sales-work","technique":"constraints","track":"sales","level":"intermediate","title":"Draft a promotion case against criteria, leaving the decision to HR","free":false,"task":"Draft the evidence section of a promotion case for Rachel Ng, for HR review. Use exactly three markdown headings in this order: ## Evidence, ## Gaps to address, ## For HR review. Under Evidence write one bullet per criterion starting \"Met:\" or \"Not met:\" with the numbers from the data. Do not recommend for or against promotion, and use no praise words like \"rockstar\" or \"star\". The last bullet under For HR review must be exactly \"- Decision rests with HR and leadership.\" At most 10 bullets, under 170 words.","materialLabel":"Your notes (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"PROMOTION CRITERIA - AE to Senior AE (HR policy, 2026)\n1. Attainment of 100 percent or more in at least 3 of the last 4 quarters.\n2. Has mentored at least one new hire.\n3. CRM hygiene: at least 90 percent of the rep's open opportunities have a close date, amount and next step filled in.\n\nDATA - Rachel Ng (AE, 2 years)\n- Attainment by quarter: Q4 2025 112 percent, Q1 2026 98 percent, Q2 2026 104 percent, Q3 2026 121 percent.\n- Mentoring: coached two new AEs through their first 90 days (confirmed by her manager, Ahmed Rahimi).\n- CRM hygiene: 82 percent of open opportunities complete (team average 91 percent).\n- One customer escalation in Q2, resolved in 6 days; customer renewed.\n- Manager comment: \"Rachel is the best rep on the team.\" (opinion)\n\nNote: promotion decisions are made by HR and leadership, not the manager's draft.","rules":[{"type":"maxBullets","max":10},{"type":"maxWords","max":170}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Recommending a decision","why":"The AI writes 'Rachel should be promoted' or 'not ready yet'.","fix":"Add: \"Do not recommend for or against promotion.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Quoting the opinion","why":"The AI repeats 'best rep on the team' as evidence.","fix":"Add: \"Use data only; leave out opinions and praise words.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Missing the hygiene gap","why":"The AI glosses over the 82 percent against the 90 percent bar.","fix":"Add: \"Mark each criterion Met: or Not met: with the number.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Wrong structure","why":"The AI writes a narrative with its own headings.","fix":"Add: \"Three ## headings in this order: Evidence, Gaps to address, For HR review.\"","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Too long","why":"The AI writes a full case.","fix":"Add: \"At most 10 bullets, under 170 words.\"","checks":["maxBullets","maxWords"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Lists the headings","patterns":["## evidence","gaps to address","for hr review"]},{"label":"Met / Not met","patterns":["met:","not met"]},{"label":"No recommendation","patterns":["do not recommend","no recommendation"]},{"label":"Exact last bullet","patterns":["decision rests","exactly"]},{"label":"Caps","patterns":["at most 8","under 130 words"]}],"hint":"List the headings, label each criterion Met or Not met with numbers, and forbid a recommendation.","rubricLabels":["Has exactly the headings Evidence, Gaps to address, For HR review in that order, and the Evidence bullets start with Met: or Not met: and include the numbers from the data","Attainment is Met (3 of 4 quarters at 100 percent or more), mentoring is Met (two new AEs) and CRM hygiene is Not met (82 percent against 90 percent)","Gives no recommendation for or against promotion, no praise words, does not quote the manager's opinion, and ends with the exact bullet \"- Decision rests with HR and leadership.\""]}