Performance Objective / Review

Case identity and authoritative master

A performance case has its own stable identity, distinct from person, period label and system row location. It is the root for scoped review records, not a global talent profile.

1. Which authoritative namespace and issuer identify this performance case? identity
2. Which system owns case facts and which identifiers are only aliases? ownership
3. What distinguishes duplicate case registration from another valid review of the same person? validation

Revision and successor lineage

Revision changes assertions about one case; a new review cycle gets a separate case identity. Corrections link prior assertions without granting indefinite retention of their personal content. Use a policy-authorized minimal redacted assertion when content is erased; unauthorized loss of the predecessor reference is invalid. The retained linkage itself remains subject to policy.

1. Does this change revise the existing case or establish a new review cycle? lifecycle
2. When was the corrected claim valid and when did the master learn it? temporal
3. Which earlier revision is superseded and under whose documented correction authority? provenance

Governing work context

Exactly one declared reviewing authority and governing work context per case. Employment is required only for employee cases; contractors and founders may use a referenced contract or mandate. Concurrent employment remains external context.

1. Which employment, contract or founder mandate governs this review? relationship
2. What authorizes the reviewing organization and reviewer in this work context? authority
3. How is a contractor reviewed without inventing an employment relationship? exception

Subject and assignment bindings

Reference person, organizational units, positions, memberships and assignments with roles and valid time. No replicated person master, contract salary or credential secret. Multiple contextual roles do not imply multiple people.

1. Which person and independently owned assignments are referenced by this case? composition
2. During which intervals did each position or membership apply? temporal
3. Which neighboring facts can be referenced without copying unnecessary personal data? privacy

Period and review instrument

The reviewed interval, operating timezone and program version are independent of record creation and rating issuance. A draft may have no assessment; profile and state guards govern required information.

1. What interval and calendar define the work reviewed by this case? temporal
2. Which versioned program and startup or enterprise profile applies? classification
3. Which information is required now for draft, open assessment or issued outcome? state

Purpose and permitted use

Declare why the review exists before gathering evidence. Development, period appraisal, recognition and external reference are distinct purposes; downstream use requires an independent authority and compatibility decision.

1. What explicit purpose governs this performance case and evidence collection? requirement
2. Which reader purposes are compatible with that declaration? access
3. Who decides whether a proposed new use is permissible and with what evidence? decision

Objective and success criteria

Objective items describe intended outcomes and qualitative or quantitative acceptance criteria. They may reference independently owned organizational goals; they do not become competency definitions or pay instructions. Record changes in opportunity, available work time, leave and dependency conditions where purpose-authorized, without copying health or accommodation details into a general review.

1. What intended outcome does this objective express? definition
2. What evidence distinguishes met, unmet and not-evaluable for this objective? measurement
3. Which dependencies or resource assumptions limit responsibility for the outcome? constraint

Objective changes and shared alignment

An objective revision records who changed expectations and when. Shared team outcomes are linked and contribution is asserted separately; they are not multiplied into private achievements.

1. Which team or organization objective does this item support without duplicating its master? relationship
2. What changed the agreed objective or its success criterion during the period? event
3. Who acknowledged the revised expectation and its effective date? authority

Evidence origin and observation

The case records an evidence citation and assessment of its relevance; the original document, log or work product keeps its own identity and master. Record method, timing and unit of analysis.

1. Which observed work product or attestation supports the claimed result? evidence
2. Who produced the evidence and by what collection method? provenance
3. When did the observation occur and when was it recorded for review? temporal

Evidence quality and proxy exclusion

Evidence may be admitted, contested or excluded with reasons. Raw activity or surveillance proxies are not a sole or automatic basis for assessment. Missing evidence is unknown, not zero contribution.

1. Is this evidence direct, self-reported, derived, contested or excluded? quality
2. Would the proposed rating rely only on activity counts or surveillance proxies? constraint
3. What non-proxy evidence supports the assessment and what uncertainty remains? validation

Attribution and shared credit claims

Attribution binds evidence to a subject, role and work context. Shares may be unknown; any fraction requires a denominator and method. Contribution does not establish IP ownership or automatically allocate revenue.

1. Who claims which contribution in which employment or assignment context? relationship
2. If a numerical share is proposed, what denominator and allocation method justify it? measurement
3. Which attestation supports or contests the contribution claim? evidence

Conflicting evidence and unresolved claims

Keep competing source-qualified claims visible. A human may issue a qualified review with recorded uncertainty, but cannot label it uncontested or silently discard an equally authoritative contrary source.

1. Which claims conflict about the same result or contribution? evidence
2. Who adjudicated the conflict and what reasons were preserved? decision
3. How is an issued outcome qualified when the dispute remains unresolved? exception

Reviewer assignment and recusal

Reviewer authority is scoped to the case, items and interval. Manager, peer, customer and appeal officer roles are not interchangeable. A role assignment does not prove an assessment was performed.

1. Which assignment grants this rater authority over these review items? authority
2. What evidence is this rater permitted to read for the declared purpose? access
3. What conflict of interest requires recusal or another accountable reviewer? exception

Assistance versus accountable assessment

Agents may organize evidence and draft questions. A human author issues review outcomes under explicit authority. AI assistance is disclosed; no recommendation executes hiring, dismissal, promotion or pay.

1. Was this assessment drafted by a person or prepared with agent assistance? process
2. Which accountable human accepted the evidence and issued the review? authority
3. What prevents an agent-produced suggestion from executing an employment decision? constraint

Contextual scale version

A narrative-only review requires no scale. When a numeric or ordinal rating is used, pin exactly one applicable version, anchors, scope and method. Capability levels and grades are referenced concepts, not performance scores.

1. Does this profile use a rating scale or narrative-only assessment? classification
2. Which immutable scale version defines the meaning of this rating value? measurement
3. What explicit mapping is needed before comparing two incompatible scale versions? interoperability

Assessment assertion and issue guard

Assessments are 0..n in a case, with at most one current issued outcome for the chosen release profile. Prior outcomes remain referencable subject to retention policy. A period rating is never a permanent person property.

1. Is this assertion draft, issued or superseded? state
2. Which admissible evidence and unresolved conflicts support this outcome? evidence
3. Which period, purpose and scale version bound the issued assessment? temporal

Calibration acts and session history

Calibration is an accountable before/after act with reasons. Allow repeated sessions and preserve dissent. A session can reference several case outcomes without owning their identities or exporting their full dossiers. A multi-case Calibration Session is a peer object with its own population and policy. Only the case-local calibration outcome belongs to this aggregate. For post-issuance calibration, the after assertion supersedes the before assertion and the before status becomes superseded.

1. Which prior assessment was changed by this calibration act? event
2. What criterion, human panel and reason explain the adjustment? decision
3. Which case-specific slices may the panel read without receiving unrelated employee records? privacy

Outcome and downstream effect boundary

Issuance records feedback or a qualified review, not an executable personnel instruction. Reward, staffing, compensation and legal decisions retain separate accountable actors and authorities.

1. What exact review outcome has been issued and to whom? decision
2. Which downstream actions are explicitly not authorized by that outcome? constraint
3. How may a separate decision cite this review under its own purpose and authority? relationship

Contribution acknowledgement and reward recommendation

Case-local acknowledgement and reward recommendation are separate from grading. Independently issued awards, public recognition and monetary rewards remain externally mastered and are referenced. Recognition here is a business concept distinct from the recognition/observation facet. Neither a note nor recommendation changes an assessment or payroll.

1. What contribution does this recognition acknowledge? event
2. Does recognition refer to an objective, work product or separate contribution? relationship
3. How is a recognition note prevented from changing the period grade or salary? constraint

Fact correction, opinion contest and process appeal

Distinguish fact correction, attribution correction, opinion disagreement, process contest and proxy exclusion. A disagreement alone does not prove a factual error; a supplementary statement must remain attached and visible according to policy.

1. Is the subject contesting a fact, attribution, opinion, process or inadmissible proxy? classification
2. Which independent route and decision-maker handles this contest? process
3. What supplementary statement and new evidence accompany the appeal? evidence

Correction, supersession and recipient notice

An accepted correction appends a successor assertion, records effective and knowledge time, and evaluates who must receive correction notice. Notice is a policy hook; no universal legal deadline is asserted.

1. Which authorized correction supersedes the contested assessment? lifecycle
2. How are original knowledge time and corrected valid time preserved? temporal
3. Which previous recipients require a purpose-limited correction notification? access

Disclosure and employer change

Each Projection describes one canonical object. A multi-case packet is a context pack of separately authorized projections. A new employer receives no former review master by default; any limited excerpt needs explicit purpose, recipient, expiry and authority. Pin the source revision. Disclosing an assessment must preserve applicable dispute qualifications and authorized supplementary statements; exception handling is deferred and the reference validator rejects omission of applicable dispute context. Do not give a one-sided impression by selectively removing an active contest.

1. Which fields of this one case may be disclosed for the requested purpose? privacy
2. What authorizes the receiving employer to use the excerpt and for how long? authority
3. Which source organization retains mastership after the subject changes employer? ownership

Retention, local profiles and exception policy

A startup may use narrative review and omit calibration. An enterprise may require contextual scales, recusal and independent appeals. Retention, legal holds and erasure are declared local policies; history preservation never grants indefinite retention.

1. What policy governs retention, restriction, erasure and legal hold for this case? retention
2. Which startup or jurisdictional profile relaxes optional ceremony while preserving identity and authority? exception
3. Which minimized audit metadata may remain after content is lawfully removed? security

Interoperability and bounded validation

Crosswalk HR Open concepts only to their verified scope. SFIA/ESCO skill identity and ISO organizational reporting remain neighbors. The companion schema and synthetic fixtures prove selected reference rules, not production IAM, HRIS interoperability or legal compliance.

1. Which verified source field or concept maps to this model and with what loss? interoperability
2. Which positive and negative fixtures demonstrate the declared reference-profile rules? validation
3. Which legal, licensed-source, regional or operational claims remain explicitly unverified? quality