# Contribution Assessment and Review Worksheet

Andrew David W.Y. · T02 material 02

Name/group: ____________ First viewpoint: ____________ Exchanged viewpoint: ____________

## A. Fix this round's scope

Object: this batch of 40 boxes and reusable capability created during it.

Window: requirements clarification to final acceptance. Authority: recommendations only, not actual allocations or rights.

Additional scope explanation without changing the shared task: ____________

## B. Two contributions to discuss first

Priority sets discussion order, not remuneration. State what the materials establish and what they do not.

| Item | First | Second |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Specific contribution | ____________ | ____________ |
| Fact ID and content | ____________ | ____________ |
| Input, output or observed effect? | ____________ | ____________ |
| Dimensions and reasons | ____________ | ____________ |
| Evidential extent and remaining inference | ____________ | ____________ |
| Interaction with other roles | ____________ | ____________ |
| Duplicate counting of the same result? | ____________ | ____________ |
| Further information needed | ____________ | ____________ |

Use “further evidence required” for missing fields, not 0. If discussing weight, explain the stage priority and reasons; numeric weights are not required.

## C. Six-dimension check

Complete separately for each contribution in B. Record questions rather than forcing scores when evidence is insufficient.

| Dimension | Fact ID | Supported judgment | Missing evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Role | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| Contribution | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| Time | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| Responsibility | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| Risk | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| Strategic value | ______ | ______ | ______ |

## D. Change of viewpoint

Original: ____________ New: ____________

- Previously overlooked contribution: ____________
- Original judgment still supported, with fact IDs: ____________
- Revision or added condition: ____________
- Connection suggested by the new view but not yet validated: ____________

Changing viewpoints changes neither shared facts nor an obligation to argue the new role ranks first.

## E. Disagreements

| Issue | Type: fact / definitions / stage priority / authority | Each side's basis | Current response | Remaining different view |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |

Split a dispute containing several types into rows. Without authority, majority voting cannot replace the formal decision process.

## F. Review after further evidence

| Original judgment | New fact ID and effect | Revise/retain and why | Remaining uncertainty |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |

Do not force a change to demonstrate learning; explain retention too. New evidence supports only its actual scope.

## G. One-page conclusion

### 1. Shared confirmed facts

Attach IDs. Disputed matters are not shared facts.

- ____________
- ____________
- ____________

### 2. Conditional assessments and reasonable disagreement

| Recommendation | Objective, stage and scope | Facts and reasons | Reservation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |

### 3. Review actions

Exercise proposals only; real duties and authority require separate confirmation.

| Dispute/gap | Evidence needed | Suggested provider | Suggested date | Suggested reviewer and basis | New fact reopening review |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ |

### 4. Current corrections and future rules

- Fact or definition misread and correction: ____________
- Future rule change proposed: ____________
- Scope, effective date and confirmation procedure proposed: ____________
- Treatment before confirmation: ____________

A proposal is not effective automatically. Do not rewrite existing agreements with a standard selected afterwards.

## H. Self-check

- Can the conclusion be retraced through fact IDs? ____________
- Did I treat missing evidence as zero or duplicate a shared result? ____________
- Which other contribution did I see only after changing roles? ____________
- What did I revise or retain, and why? ____________
- Did I present a recommendation as a decision outside my authority? ____________

[After independent judgment, role exchange and disagreement records, open supplementary evidence](/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-06.md)