{"id":"wri-mgr-promotion-case-gaps","audience":"managers","category":"writing-feedback","technique":"verification","title":"Find the gaps in a promotion case before the committee sees it","free":false,"task":"You drafted a promotion case for your analyst, and the committee scores it against 3 criteria. Ask for exactly 3 numbered lines, one per criterion and named exactly as the committee names it, each starting 'Strong' or 'Gap' and then one sentence on what evidence from your notes to add. Plain text, no rewritten case. Write a prompt that gets that review.","materialLabel":"Committee criteria, your draft and your notes (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"PROMOTION COMMITTEE CRITERIA (Analyst II -> Senior Analyst)\n1. Scope: owns work that affects more than one team.\n2. Influence: changes how others work, without authority over them.\n3. Results: measurable impact, with numbers.\n\nMY DRAFT CASE FOR TOMAS REYES\nTomas has been an outstanding analyst this year. He is always willing to help, extremely hard-working, and a great team player. He owned the monthly sales forecast, which several teams depend on. Everyone enjoys working with him and his attitude is excellent. I strongly recommend him for promotion.\n\nMY NOTES (things I didn't put in yet)\n- Forecast accuracy improved from 78% to 91% after he rebuilt the model (Feb-Sept).\n- He ran 3 training sessions for the marketing and ops teams on reading the forecast; ops now uses it for staffing plans (they didn't before).\n- He found a $40,000 double-billing error in vendor invoices in June.\n- The forecast is used by sales, marketing, ops and finance (4 teams).","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":3},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Asking for a polish","why":"The AI makes the praise sound better without checking it against the criteria.","fix":"Show it: \"Exactly 3 numbered lines: 1. Scope: Strong or Gap - ...\"","checks":["numberedItems","r0"]},{"title":"Not using your notes","why":"The AI says \"add more evidence\" without pointing to the numbers you already have.","fix":"Add: \"For each gap, name the evidence from my notes to add.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Getting a rewrite","why":"AI hands back a new case, so you don't see what was missing.","fix":"Add: \"No rewritten case. Plain text.\"","checks":["r2","plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Uses the criteria","patterns":["scope","influence","results","criteri"]},{"label":"Asks for Strong or Gap","patterns":["strong","gap"]},{"label":"Points to the notes","patterns":["notes","evidence","78%","91%"]},{"label":"Bans a rewrite","patterns":["don'?t rewrite","no rewrit","not (a )?rewrite","only the"]},{"label":"Asks for plain text","patterns":["plain","no bold","no markdown","no formatting","no headings"]}],"hint":"Committees score against their criteria, not adjectives. Ask the AI to check each criterion and point to the evidence you already have.","rubricLabels":["The 3 lines are labeled Scope, Influence and Results (the committee's names), each marked Strong or Gap","Influence is a Gap that points to the 3 training sessions and ops now using the forecast for staffing, and Results is a Gap that points to forecast accuracy rising from 78% to 91% and/or the $40,000 error he found","Scope mentions the forecast being used by 4 teams (sales, marketing, ops and finance), and the reply has no rewritten case and nothing before or after the 3 lines"]}