Humanity’s Last PRD
Latest drop: Haiku 5.5 · 8 Oct
Tasks / Leadership

Write a performance review

Can the model write a review that is clear, fair and specific enough to change what the person does next?

Task type v1.1 · 2 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

What AI gets right here, and what you’ll still have to catch

From 16 graded outputs by 8 models. 50% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Judges outcomes, not activity100% pass
    Every rating change and keep is justified by outcomes against goals, with shipping and activity treated as context, not the result.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Fourteen ratings, three managers
  2. Owns the manager's part100% pass
    Ana plainly acknowledges her Q3 mistake and commits to reviewing goal metrics first in every monthly 1:1.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Shipped a lot, moved nothing
  3. Clear and direct, with care97% pass
    The note to Ravi is direct, specific about what needs to change, and framed to help him succeed; the whole pre-read is clear and actionable.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Fourteen ratings, three managers

Where it slips

  1. Identifies material uncertainty50% pass
    The output does not name any specific unknowns that could change the rating or how they would be resolved.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Shipped a lot, moved nothing
  2. Notices who's underrated69% pass
    It does not propose Exceeds or ask Sara to justify Meets despite Nora beating both goals; it merely keeps Meets, missing the underrating.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · Fourteen ratings, three managers
  3. Catches the inflated team78% pass
    The output proposes lowering Ben from Exceeds to Meets, failing to keep Ben at Exceeds as required; Ben beat both outcome goals and should remain Exceeds.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Fourteen ratings, three managers

How it’s graded

Each check is built on how world-class product and growth leaders do this work, as they’ve described it on Lenny’s Podcast, and names the leader it comes from.

  1. Clear and direct, with care

    Does the review say plainly what needs to change, in words the person couldn't misread, while showing it is written to help them succeed?

    Passes when Every main point is stated directly, with the specific change expected and the support on offer.

    Kim ScottLenny’s Podcast

  2. Judges outcomes, not activity

    Does the review judge the person on the outcomes they achieved against their goals, rather than on how much they shipped or how busy they were?

    Passes when Rates against the goals' outcomes, with the evidence, and treats output as context, not the result.

    Product and growth leadersOn Lenny’s Podcast

  3. Names gaps you could see

    Is each area to improve described as specific, observable behaviour with what good would look like, rather than labels like 'be more strategic'?

    Passes when Every gap names what the person did or didn't do, in a specific situation, and what doing it well would look like.

    Product and growth leadersOn Lenny’s Podcast

  4. Weighs the whole period

    Does the review weigh the whole review period, rather than letting one recent event or one strong impression decide the verdict?

    Passes when Covers the whole period in proportion, and explicitly guards against a recent event or one impression dominating.

    Product and growth leadersOn Lenny’s Podcast

Plus our standard checks

Uses the supplied evidence correctly · Addresses the actual decision · Respects explicit constraints · Identifies material uncertainty · Avoids unsupported claims · Produces the required deliverable · and 3 written for each task, which you’ll see in the tasks below.

The tasks

Read the brief, then compare up to three outputs, each with the LLM judge’s verdict on every check. Highlights mark what a PM had to fix.

The brief

You're the Director of Product at Northgate, and you're facilitating Thursday's calibration for 14 PMs across three managers (Ravi, Sara and Tom). Write the pre-read, in no more than 1,100 words: the ratings you'd change and why, each with the evidence, the ones you'd keep, and a short note to Ravi about his ratings. Use the guidance below.\n\nThe proposed ratings and evidence are attached.

What the model was given2 items: calibration_guidance.md, proposed_ratings.csv (one row per PM, as each manager submitted it)
calibration_guidance.md7 lines · Download
# Calibration guidance

- Ratings judge outcomes against goals first, then how the work was done. Shipping is not an outcome.
- Any rating other than Meets needs written evidence of outcomes.
- A Below rating needs documented earlier feedback on the gap.
- Expected spread across the org: most PMs Meets; Exceeds for clear outperformance on outcomes.
- The calibration facilitator proposes changes; managers can respond before ratings are final.
proposed_ratings.csv (one row per PM, as each manager submitted it)pm,manager,proposed_rating,goal_1,goal_1_result,goal_2,goal_2_result,evidence_cited_by_manager Aisha,Ravi,Greatly exceeds,Raise trial conversion 8% to 11%,8.4%,Ship self-serve billing,Shipped,Shipped 9 features; great energy; leadership loves her Ben,Ravi,Exceeds,Cut onboarding time 10 to 5 days,4.5 days,Raise activation 30% to 38%,39%,Hit both goals Chloe,Ravi,Exceeds,Grow API usage 20%,+4%,Launch partner portal,Shipped,Partner portal launched on time; strong specs Dev,Ravi,Exceeds,Reduce support tickets per account 25%,-27%,NPS from 31 to 40,41,Hit both goals; mentored two APMs Emma,Ravi,Exceeds,Expansion revenue +15%,+6%,Ship usage dashboard,Shipped,Very responsive to Sales; shipped 6 Sales requests Femi,Sara,Meets,Raise weekly retention 41% to 46%,46%,Cut churn of new accounts 20%,-22%,"Hit both goals, steady" Gita,Sara,Below,Raise invoices paid online 35% to 45%,47%,Launch reminders v2 by September,"Launched, rolled back after 4 days (support not briefed)",Reminders launch in September was a mess Hugo,Sara,Meets,Ship mobile app v2,Shipped late,Mobile weekly actives +20%,+3%,Delivered a hard project Ines,Tom,Exceeds,Cut checkout drop-off 30% to 22%,21%,Launch two payment methods,Shipped,"Hit both, specific evidence" Jon,Tom,Meets,Search success 60% to 70%,66%,Ship filters,Shipped,"Good progress, more to do" Kai,Tom,Meets,Reduce refund rate 4% to 3%,3.1%,Fraud losses -20%,-24%,Solid year Lena,Tom,Below,Grow marketplace listings 25%,+9%,Launch seller analytics,Not launched,"Missed both goals; feedback given in Q2 and Q3 1:1s, documented" Mo,Tom,Meets,Cut time to first sale for new sellers 21 to 14 days,15 days,Seller NPS +5,+6,"Nearly hit, good stakeholder work" Nora,Sara,Meets,Raise payment success 92% to 95%,95.4%,Cut payment support tickets 30%,-35%,"Quiet, delivered"
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Judges each PM on outcomes against their goals, as the guidance says. Ravi rated all five of his PMs Exceeds or above, but only Ben and Dev hit both goals; Aisha (Greatly exceeds) missed her conversion goal (8.4% against 11%), Chloe missed API usage (+4% against +20%) and Emma missed expansion (+6% against +15%), and his evidence is output ('shipped 9 features', 'responsive to Sales'). Proposes Aisha, Chloe and Emma at Meets (or lower for Chloe, whose outcome goal was far off), keeps Ben and Dev at Exceeds. Gita (Sara, Below) beat her main goal (47% against 45%) and the Below rests on one September launch, with no documented feedback, which the guidance requires: Meets, with the launch-readiness gap documented now. Nora (Sara, Meets) beat both goals: a candidate for Exceeds. Lena (Tom, Below) has documented feedback and missed both goals: Below stands. Hugo shipped late and missed his outcome: Meets is generous but defensible, or Below needs documentation first. The note to Ravi is direct and respectful: rate on outcomes, not activity, with what evidence he'd need.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Keeps Aisha at Greatly exceeds
Task

Staff-level · v1.0

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

GPT-6 AstraChatGPT100Usable with a quick editGPT-6.1 SolAPI100Usable with a quick editHaiku 5.5API100Usable with a quick editGemini 3.8 FlashAPI98Usable with a quick editOpus 5.5Claude88Needs more workGPT-6 LunaAPI82Needs more workSonnet 5.5API77Needs more workGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini38Needs more work
GPT-6.1 SolAPI

Usable with a quick edit13 of 13 checks passed

The pre-read is well-structured, uses evidence correctly, and makes clear proposals. A PM could use it with at most light editing for tone or emphasis, without re-checking facts or redoing reasoning.

Output

Thursday calibration pre-read

From: Director of Product, Northgate Scope: 14 PMs across Ravi, Sara and Tom Status: Facilitator proposals—not final ratings. Managers should respond with additional evidence before we finalize.

Calibration approach

We will assess outcomes against goals first, then how the work was done. Shipping, responsiveness, strong specifications and leadership visibility are relevant context, but do not substitute for customer or business outcomes.

Exceeds requires written evidence of clear outperformance, not simply completing planned work. Below requires both evidence of underperformance and documented earlier feedback about the gap. Missing feedback does not make weak performance satisfactory; it does mean we cannot support Below on the submitted record.

Ratings I propose changing

PMProposed changeEvidence and rationale
Aisha — RaviGreatly exceeds → MeetsTrial conversion reached 8.4% against an 11% goal, from an 8% baseline. Self-serve billing shipped, but no resulting business or customer impact is supplied. Nine features, energy and leadership enthusiasm do not establish exceptional outcomes. The conversion miss is substantial; without documented earlier feedback, the record also does not support Below.
Chloe — RaviExceeds → MeetsAPI usage grew 4% against a 20% goal. The partner portal launched on time, but its adoption or impact is not documented. Strong specifications and timely delivery do not offset the outcome shortfall sufficiently to support Exceeds.
Emma — RaviExceeds → MeetsExpansion revenue grew 6% against a 15% goal. The usage dashboard and six Sales requests shipped, but there is no evidence that they delivered additional outcomes. Responsiveness to Sales is positive working behavior, not evidence of exceeding the revenue goal.
Gita — SaraBelow → MeetsOnline invoice payment reached 47% against a 45% goal, from 35%—a strong outcome. Reminders v2 was rolled back after four days because Support was not briefed, a material execution and coordination failure. However, the submission contains no documented earlier feedback on that gap, which is required for Below. Meets recognizes the mixed record; it does not excuse the launch failure.
Ines — TomExceeds → MeetsCheckout drop-off fell to 21% against a 22% goal, from 30%, and two payment methods shipped. This is successful delivery with some outcome overperformance. On the current record, however, modest overdelivery on checkout plus a launch does not establish clear overall outperformance. Adoption, incremental conversion or revenue from the payment methods could strengthen the case for Exceeds.
Nora — SaraMeets → ExceedsPayment success reached 95.4% against a 95% goal, from 92%; payment support tickets fell 35% against a 30% reduction goal. Both measured outcomes surpassed their targets. This is comparable to the outcome-based cases supporting Ben and Dev. “Quiet” should neither diminish nor enhance the rating.

Ratings I propose keeping

PMKeepEvidence and rationale
Ben — RaviExceedsOnboarding fell to 4.5 days against a five-day goal, from ten; activation reached 39% against 38%, from 30%. Both customer outcomes exceeded their targets.
Dev — RaviExceedsSupport tickets per account fell 27% against a 25% reduction goal; NPS reached 41 against 40, from 31. Both outcomes surpassed targets. Mentoring two APMs strengthens the assessment of how the work was done, but is not the primary justification.
Femi — SaraMeetsWeekly retention reached 46%, exactly the goal, from 41%; new-account churn fell 22% against a 20% reduction goal. Strong goal attainment, with some overdelivery, supports Meets rather than a clear-outperformance rating.
Hugo — SaraMeetsMobile v2 shipped late, and mobile weekly actives grew only 3% against a 20% goal. “Delivered a hard project” does not establish outcome success. This is a significant concern, but no documented earlier feedback is supplied to support Below.
Jon — TomMeetsSearch success improved from 60% to 66% against a 70% goal; filters shipped. Meaningful progress, but the principal outcome remained short of target.
Kai — TomMeetsRefund rate reached 3.1% against a 3% goal, from 4%; fraud losses fell 24% against a 20% reduction goal. One near miss and one exceeded outcome support Meets overall.
Lena — TomBelowListings grew 9% against a 25% goal, and seller analytics did not launch. The submission explicitly cites documented Q2 and Q3 1:1 feedback. Both the performance gap and earlier-feedback requirement are evidenced.
Mo — TomMeetsTime to first sale fell to 15 days against a 14-day goal, from 21; seller NPS rose six points against five. Near attainment on one outcome and overdelivery on the other support Meets. Stakeholder work is positive supporting context.

Note to Ravi

Your submission rates all five PMs above Meets, but three cases rely heavily on shipping, responsiveness or visibility despite substantial misses on their stated outcome goals. Please revisit Aisha, Chloe and Emma using the same outcome standard that supports Ben and Dev. If you have additional attributable impact or documented earlier feedback, bring it before Thursday. We are seeking consistent judgments, not enforcing a quota.

Proposed spread: 10 Meets, three Exceeds and one Below.

Grades and run details

Decision model 100 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly68%
  • passAddresses the actual decision84%
  • passRespects explicit constraints49%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty74%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims67%
  • passProduces the required deliverable90%
  • passCatches the inflated team100%
  • passRescues Gita from one bad launch100%
  • passNotices who's underrated100%
  • passClear and direct, with care98%
  • passJudges outcomes, not activity99%
  • passNames gaps you could see81%
  • passWeighs the whole period79%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
37 s
Submitted
6 Oct 2026
GPT-6 AstraChatGPT

Usable with a quick edit13 of 13 checks passed

The pre-read is evidence-based, complete, and directly actionable; a PM could use it with minor wording tweaks without rechecking facts or redoing reasoning.

Output

Thursday calibration pre-read

From: Director of Product, Northgate Scope: 14 PMs across Ravi, Sara and Tom

These are my proposed changes, not final decisions. Please respond before Thursday with missing outcome evidence, relevant goal context, or documented earlier feedback that could change the assessment.

Standard I’m applying

We rate outcomes against goals first, then how the work was done. Shipping, responsiveness, visibility and strong execution matter, but do not substitute for impact.

For Exceeds, I’m looking for clear outperformance—not simply delivery or attainment. On this evidence, exceeding both measurable outcome goals supports Exceeds; meeting one and modestly beating another generally supports Meets. A modest beat on one outcome plus a shipped deliverable is not enough by itself.

A Below requires both evidence of underperformance and documented earlier feedback. Where that feedback is absent from the packet, I am not proposing Below. That does not mean the missed goals are acceptable or should go unaddressed.

Ratings I propose changing

PMProposed changeEvidence and rationale
Aisha — RaviGreatly exceeds → MeetsTrial conversion rose from 8% to 8.4%, against 11%. Self-serve billing shipped, but no resulting customer or business impact is supplied. Nine features, energy and leadership enthusiasm do not establish exceptional outcomes. The conversion miss is substantial; however, the packet contains no documented earlier feedback supporting Below.
Chloe — RaviExceeds → MeetsAPI usage grew 4%, against 20%. The partner portal launched on time, and strong specifications support execution quality, not outcome outperformance. There is no written evidence supporting Exceeds or documented earlier feedback supporting Below.
Emma — RaviExceeds → MeetsExpansion revenue grew 6%, against 15%. Shipping the dashboard and six Sales requests, plus responsiveness to Sales, do not offset the revenue shortfall without evidence of impact. No documented earlier feedback is supplied to support Below.
Gita — SaraBelow → MeetsOnline invoice payment reached 47%, above the 45% target from a 35% baseline. Reminders v2 was rolled back after four days because Support was not briefed—a meaningful execution failure. We should account for that failure, but not let it erase the payment outcome. The packet also lacks the documented earlier feedback required for Below. Please bring any evidence of rollback impact and prior feedback.
Ines — TomExceeds → MeetsCheckout drop-off fell from 30% to 21%, against 22%: a strong result, modestly above target. Two payment methods shipped, but shipment is not a second outcome. On the supplied evidence, this is solid attainment rather than clear overall outperformance. Incremental adoption, conversion or revenue evidence could change the assessment.
Nora — SaraMeets → ExceedsPayment success reached 95.4%, against 95% from 92%; payment-support tickets fell 35%, against 30%. She exceeded both measurable outcome goals. That warrants the same recognition as comparable performance elsewhere. “Quiet” is not a reason to discount demonstrated impact.

Ratings I propose keeping

PMRatingEvidence and rationale
Ben — RaviExceedsOnboarding fell from 10 to 4.5 days, beating 5 days; activation reached 39%, beating 38% from 30%. Both outcome goals were exceeded.
Dev — RaviExceedsSupport tickets per account fell 27%, against 25%; NPS rose from 31 to 41, against 40. Both outcome goals were exceeded. Mentoring two APMs reinforces the assessment of how he worked; it is not the basis for the rating.
Femi — SaraMeetsWeekly retention reached 46%, exactly on target from 41%; new-account churn fell 22%, against 20%. Strong delivery against goals, with a modest beat on one—not enough evidence of clear overall outperformance.
Hugo — SaraMeets, pending feedback reviewMobile weekly actives grew 3%, against 20%, and app v2 shipped late. “A hard project” does not establish successful outcomes. This is a material performance concern, but the packet lacks documented earlier feedback needed for Below.
Jon — TomMeetsSearch success improved from 60% to 66%, short of 70%. Filters shipped, but no incremental impact is given. There is neither evidence for Exceeds nor documented earlier feedback supporting Below. The remaining outcome gap needs explicit follow-up.
Kai — TomMeetsRefund rate reached 3.1%, narrowly missing 3% from 4%; fraud losses fell 24%, beating 20%. Mixed attainment supports Meets.
Lena — TomBelowListings grew 9%, against 25%, and seller analytics did not launch. The packet documents feedback in Q2 and Q3 1:1s. Both the performance evidence and earlier-feedback requirement are present.
Mo — TomMeetsTime to first sale fell from 21 to 15 days, narrowly missing 14 days; seller NPS increased 6 points, against 5. Mixed attainment and good stakeholder work support Meets.

Note to Ravi

Ravi, all five of your submissions are above Meets, but the evidence supports that distinction for Ben and Dev—not Aisha, Chloe or Emma. In those three cases, the write-ups emphasize shipping, responsiveness or visibility despite substantial outcome misses.

Please revise those rationales around goals, actual results and attributable impact, and bring any missing evidence or earlier feedback. This is not a quota correction: strong results should earn high ratings regardless of manager. We need the same evidentiary bar across teams.

Proposed distribution: 10 Meets, 3 Exceeds, 1 Below; no Greatly exceeds. This is a consequence of the individual assessments, not a forced curve.

Grades and run details

Decision model 100 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly83%
  • passAddresses the actual decision87%
  • passRespects explicit constraints46%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty88%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims64%
  • passProduces the required deliverable85%
  • passCatches the inflated team100%
  • passRescues Gita from one bad launch100%
  • passNotices who's underrated100%
  • passClear and direct, with care98%
  • passJudges outcomes, not activity100%
  • passNames gaps you could see73%
  • passWeighs the whole period79%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
32 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026
Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI

Usable with a quick edit13 of 13 checks passed

The memo is exhaustive for calibration, uses only supplied evidence, and could be sent with at most minor wording tweaks.

Output

To: Ravi, Sara, Tom From: Director of Product Date: October 24, 2023 Subject: Pre-Read: Product Calibration (Thursday)

Team—ahead of Thursday’s calibration, I have reviewed all 14 proposed ratings against our calibration principles: 1. Outcomes over outputs: We evaluate impact against goals first, then how the work was done. Shipping is an output, not an outcome. 2. Evidence-based: Any rating other than Meets requires documented outcome data. 3. Guardrails on Below: A Below rating requires documented prior feedback on the gap. 4. Distribution: Most PMs should land at Meets, with Exceeds reserved for clear outperformance on business and customer outcomes.

Below are my proposed adjustments, the ratings I recommend keeping, and the discussion points for Thursday.

---

1. Proposed Rating Changes

#### Aisha (Ravi): Greatly Exceeds $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: Trial conversion increased from 8% to 8.4% (well short of the 11% target). Self-serve billing and 9 features shipped. * Rationale: Aisha’s energy and velocity are appreciated, but shipping features and executive visibility do not constitute business outcomes. She significantly missed her primary conversion goal. Delivering features without moving the core metric places her solidly at Meets.

#### Chloe (Ravi): Exceeds $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: API usage grew +4% (target was +20%). Partner portal shipped on time with strong specs. * Rationale: Timely delivery and strong documentation are expected baseline PM capabilities. Chloe missed her outcome metric by 16 percentage points. Meets is the appropriate rating.

#### Emma (Ravi): Exceeds $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: Expansion revenue grew +6% (target was +15%). Shipped usage dashboard and 6 sales requests. * Rationale: Being responsive to Sales and clearing backlog requests reflects high effort, but it produced less than half of the targeted revenue expansion. Meets appropriately reflects delivery without outsized outcome impact.

#### Gita (Sara): Below $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: Invoices paid online reached 47% (exceeded the 45% target, up from 35%). Reminders v2 launched in September and was rolled back after 4 days due to unbriefed support. * Rationale: Gita significantly outperformed on her primary outcome metric (+12 pts). The launch execution for reminders was unacceptable, but: 1. Our policy prioritizes outcomes first, then execution. 2. A Below rating explicitly requires documented prior feedback on the gap, which is absent here. Gita should receive Meets, paired with explicit operational feedback regarding launch readiness.

#### Nora (Sara): Meets $\rightarrow$ Exceeds * Evidence: Payment success increased to 95.4% (beat 95% target, from 92%). Payment support tickets dropped -35% (beat -30% target). * Rationale: Nora exceeded both of her core outcome metrics. Quiet, low-drama delivery should be rewarded just as visibly as vocal execution. This is textbook outperformance.

---

2. Ratings Kept as Proposed

  • Ben (Ravi) — Exceeds: Cut onboarding time to 4.5 days (target: 5) and grew activation to 39% (target: 38%). Clear outperformance on both outcome metrics.
  • Dev (Ravi) — Exceeds: Reduced support tickets by -27% (target: -25%) and lifted NPS to 41 (target: 40), while mentoring two APMs. Strong outcomes combined with positive org impact.
  • Ines (Tom) — Exceeds: Reduced checkout drop-off to 21% (beat target of 22%) and successfully shipped two new payment methods. Met both outcome and delivery bars.
  • Jon (Tom) — Meets: Improved search success to 66% (target: 70%) and shipped filters. Solid progress; Meets is accurate.
  • Kai (Tom) — Meets: Refund rate finished at 3.1% (target: 3.0%) and fraud losses dropped -24% (beat -20% target). Consistent, dependable execution.
  • Mo (Tom) — Meets: Time to first sale dropped to 15 days (target: 14) and seller NPS reached +6 (target: +5). Solid year with strong stakeholder management.
  • Lena (Tom) — Below: Marketplace listings grew only +9% (target: +25%) and seller analytics failed to launch. Missed both goals. Formal feedback was documented in Q2 and Q3 1:1s, meeting our required standard for Below.

---

3. Key Discussion Items for Calibration

  • Hugo (Sara — Proposed: Meets): Hugo shipped mobile v2 late and achieved +3% WAU growth against a +20% target. By outcomes alone, this is Below performance. However, our guidance requires documented earlier feedback to assign a Below. If Sara has prior documented feedback, we should move Hugo to Below. If not, Hugo stays at Meets, but must be placed on a structured performance plan immediately.
  • Femi (Sara — Proposed: Meets): Femi hit weekly retention (46%) and beat account churn reduction (-22% vs. -20%). We will discuss whether Femi’s consistent delivery warrants an Exceeds alongside Nora.

---

4. Org Distribution Impact

* Proposed initial spread: 1 Greatly Exceeds / 5 Exceeds / 6 Meets / 2 Below (Ravi: 100% Exceeds+, Sara: 0% Exceeds+, Tom: 25% Exceeds) * Revised spread: 0 Greatly Exceeds / 4 Exceeds (29%) / 9 Meets (64%) / 1 Below (7%) (pending Hugo/Femi) This aligns with our goal of centering the team at Meets while recognizing demonstrable outperformance.

---

5. Note to Ravi

Ravi,

I want to speak directly to your proposed ratings before we meet Thursday. You put forward 5 out of 5 PMs at Exceeds or Greatly Exceeds. While I appreciate your instinct to back your team, this submission has two significant issues:

  1. Outputs vs. Outcomes: For Aisha, Chloe, and Emma, your rationale centers on features shipped, sales responsiveness, spec quality, and team energy. These are outputs and behaviors. When we look at their business targets, all three fell well short: trial conversion missed by 2.6 pts, API usage missed by 16 pts, and expansion revenue missed by 9 pts. Shipping software that does not move the target metric is not Exceeds performance.
  2. Parity across the org: Tom and Sara evaluated their teams strictly against measurable results. If we reward activity on your team while holding their PMs to hard outcome metrics, we undermine the integrity of the process and demotivate top performers across Northgate (such as Nora, who exceeded all metrics without fanfare).

Ben and Dev demonstrated genuine outperformance on outcomes and have earned their Exceeds ratings. Aisha, Chloe, and Emma are valued contributors, but their results are standard Meets. Let’s align on this calibration standard so we can give your PMs clear, actionable coaching on driving commercial and customer impact, rather than just shipping volume.

Looking forward to a productive session Thursday.

Grades and run details

Decision model 96 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly29%
  • passAddresses the actual decision82%
  • passRespects explicit constraints26%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty92%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims50%
  • passProduces the required deliverable83%
  • passCatches the inflated team100%
  • passRescues Gita from one bad launch100%
  • passNotices who's underrated100%
  • passClear and direct, with care99%
  • passJudges outcomes, not activity100%
  • passNames gaps you could see52%
  • passWeighs the whole period78%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
39 s
Submitted
6 Oct 2026

Check by check

Where the outputs differ comes first. Open a check to read the judge’s reasons. “Mixed” means the two graders disagreed.

All got right 13

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Every factual claim about current performance, results, and documented feedback is taken directly from the supplied proposed_ratings.csv or follows by arithmetic.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

All factual claims about current performance, numbers, and events are taken directly from the supplied proposed_ratings.csv or calibration_guidance.md, with no invented facts.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Every performance number and outcome result in the output matches the supplied proposed_ratings.csv.

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The pre-read commits to specific rating changes and keeps, and states that additional evidence from managers could change the ratings before finalization.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The output commits to specific rating changes and keeps, with evidence, and states that missing outcome evidence or documented feedback could change the assessment.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo commits to specific rating changes (Aisha to Meets, Gita to Meets, Nora to Exceeds, etc.) and keeps others, giving a clear answer to the calibration decision.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The output is a pre-read under 1,100 words, includes the ratings to change and keep with evidence, and a short note to Ravi, as requested.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The output is a pre-read under 1,100 words, includes the ratings to change and keep with evidence, and a note to Ravi, respecting all explicit constraints.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The pre-read is under 1,100 words, respects the calibration guidance, and includes all requested sections (changes, keeps, discussion, note to Ravi).

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It names unknowns (e.g., missing adoption/revenue data for Ines, possible additional evidence from Ravi) and says how they would be resolved or change the call.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

It identifies missing documented feedback for several PMs, asks for rollback impact and prior feedback for Gita, and notes that incremental evidence could change Ines's rating.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It explicitly flags that Hugo's Below rating depends on whether Sara has documented prior feedback and says what to do in each case.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Interpretations and judgments are clearly presented as the facilitator's proposals, not as established facts, and no unsupported causal claims are made.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Interpretations and standards are clearly presented as such, and no cause, forecast, or motivation is stated as fact without support.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Assessments are framed as the director's judgment; no causal claim is asserted as fact beyond the supplied evidence.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The pre-read is complete, in the right form for the Director of Product, within the word limit, and usable as-is for the calibration meeting.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The pre-read is complete, in the requested format, within the word limit, and directly usable by the managers with at most light edits.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The pre-read is complete, in memo format, addressed to the three managers, and actionable as a discussion brief.

Catches the inflated teamRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The pre-read names Aisha, Chloe, and Emma with their missed outcome goals and proposes lowering them to Meets, while keeping Ben and Dev at Exceeds.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

It identifies that Aisha, Chloe, and Emma missed outcome goals and proposes lowering them to Meets, while keeping Ben and Dev at Exceeds, and calls out Ravi's emphasis on output.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It names Aisha (8.4% vs 11%), Chloe (+4% vs +20%), and Emma (+6% vs +15%) and proposes lowering all three to Meets, while keeping Ben and Dev at Exceeds.

Rescues Gita from one bad launchRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It raises Gita to Meets, noting she beat her main goal and the Below rating rests on one launch without the required documented earlier feedback, and implies the gap should be documented now.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

It raises Gita to Meets because she beat her main goal, notes the Below rested on one launch without required documented feedback, and asks for the launch gap to be documented.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It notes Gita beat her main outcome (47% > 45%) and that Below lacks documented prior feedback, raising her to Meets with a note to document the launch gap.

Notices who's underratedRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It raises Nora to Exceeds, citing that she beat both outcome goals, and notes that 'quiet' should not affect the rating.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

It notices Nora beat both outcome goals and proposes raising her from Meets to Exceeds with the specific evidence.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It highlights that Nora beat both goals (95.4%, -35%) and proposes raising her from Meets to Exceeds.

Clear and direct, with careRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The note to Ravi is direct and respectful, stating exactly what needs to change and what evidence would help, and the whole pre-read is clear and actionable.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The note to Ravi is direct, specific about what needs to change, and framed to help him succeed; the whole pre-read is clear and actionable.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The note to Ravi directly says his ratings are based on outputs, not outcomes, gives specific examples, and offers coaching on driving impact rather than shipping volume.

Judges outcomes, not activityRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Every rating is justified by outcomes against goals, with shipping and activity treated as context, not the result.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Every rating change and keep is justified by outcomes against goals, with shipping and activity treated as context, not the result.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Every rating change is justified by comparing goal results to targets, not by shipped features or stakeholder praise.

Names gaps you could seeRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Gaps are described as specific, observable results (e.g., 'trial conversion reached 8.4% against an 11% goal', 'reminders v2 rolled back because support was not briefed').

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Gaps are described as specific, observable results (e.g., rollback due to unbriefed support, late shipment, missed targets) rather than vague labels.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The gaps for Ravi cite concrete evidence (features shipped, sales responsiveness) and define what good looks like (aligning on calibration standard, rewarding metric movement).

Weighs the whole periodRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The pre-read weighs the full year's goals and results for each PM, and for Gita it explicitly balances the strong main goal with the launch failure, avoiding recency bias.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The assessment weighs the full year's goal results and explicitly guards against letting the recent rollback erase Gita's overall outcome.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It weighs full-period results (e.g., Gita's strong metric outweighs one bad launch, Hugo's missed WAU is considered against delivery, not just the late shipment).

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task type, across all its tasks and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Calibrated.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6 AstraChatGPT93.892.32None
2Haiku 5.5API93.888.52None
3GPT-6.1 SolAPI97.984.62None
4Opus 5.5Claude91.885.22None
5GPT-6 LunaAPI94.177.72None
6Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI89.776.92None
7Sonnet 5.5API90.174.22None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini74.449.52None

What you get for the cost

Haiku 5.5 · API matches GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT at about a fortieth of the cost.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.50607080901001×3×10×30×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 91, 70× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 91, 1.7× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 89, 13× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 87, 61× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 82, the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 82, 12× the cheapestSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 81, 31× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 61, 1.9× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTHaiku 5.5 · APIGPT-6.1 Sol · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Luna · APIGemini 3.8 Flash · APISonnet 5.5 · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and costCost partly estimated (app runs with no usage meter)

Cost is each output’s tokens at the model’s list price, shown relative to the cheapest setup. Runs done in an app have no usage meter, so theirs are estimated from the same setup’s measured runs. How we compare cost

The PM job

Reviewing the performance of a PM you manage.

Why it matters

Reviews fail by being kind and vague, or by judging a whole year on its worst month. Either way, the person doesn't know what to change.

What good looks like

  • Clear and direct, with care
  • Judges outcomes, not activity
  • Names gaps in observable terms
  • Weighs the whole period, not the last month

Deliberately not measured

  • HR policy compliance beyond what the brief supplies
Capability tested

Feedback and judgement

The failure we’re looking for

Vague, diplomatic feedback, or a verdict driven by one recent event

Grading

Decision model and LLM judge, calibrated against a blind PM review