Method
How and when views were invited; who could respond.
Working templates
Simple structures for
clearer evidence.
These templates are prompts, not mandatory forms. Adapt them to the organization while preserving dates, ownership, context and traceability.
Activity log
Record purpose as well as delivery
| Field | What to capture | Quality question |
|---|---|---|
| Reference and date | Stable ID and delivery date | Can it be found quickly? |
| Activity | Topic, format and audience | Is the description specific? |
| Purpose | Need or priority addressed | Why was it selected? |
| Owner or source | Responsible team or provider | Who can explain it? |
| Linked records | Participation or feedback reference | Does the story connect? |
Participation review
Put totals in context
Population in scope: define employees, teams or roles included.
Access: explain eligibility, invitation or availability.
Participation: state the measure and time period.
Differences: note meaningful variation or missing data.
Response: identify an action where the evidence warrants one.
Privacy check
Prefer aggregate reporting. Do not add employee names or unrelated demographic details simply to make the record appear complete.
Feedback summary
Separate method, theme and response
Context
Response coverage, confidentiality and known limitations.
Themes
Patterns supported by the source, without exposing individuals.
Response
What will continue, change, be tested or remain unresolved.
Forward plan
Turn evidence into owned action
| Priority | Evidence link | Action | Owner | Timing or checkpoint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State the issue or opportunity | Use index references | Describe the next step | Name a role, not just a department | Set an appropriate review point |
| Include what will continue | Show why it remains relevant | Define maintenance action | Confirm accountability | Revisit during the cycle |
Evidence index
Create the map before the archive
Reference — short, stable code such as A01 or F03
Title — plain-language record name
Date and version — when it applies and which copy is controlled
Evidence area — primary framework connection
Owner — person or role able to answer questions
Notes — scope, limitation, redaction or replacement information
Application quality check
Test the package as a reviewer would
RelevantEvery item supports a criterion.
CurrentDates fit the review period.
ReadableLabels and context make sense.
ConnectedClaims point to records.
ProportionateDetail matches need and scale.
ProtectedPersonal data is minimized.