Evidence
Two minutes now, or two hours in November.
A win written down the week it happened is specific, numbered and true. The same win reconstructed nine months later is an adjective.
Recency bias is a memory problem, not a character flaw
Every manager knows they over-weight the last six weeks. Knowing it does not fix it, because the earlier months genuinely are not available to recall any more — the detail that made March impressive is gone, and what is left is a vague positive feeling that loses every argument to a colleague who brought specifics.
The fix is not trying harder to remember. It is writing things down at the point they happen, in small enough pieces that it costs nothing.
Impact first, then how
Every entry follows the same shape: what changed, and what they did to change it. Leading with the outcome is what makes a record useful to somebody who was not there — which at promotion time is most of the room.
Title
Cut new-engineer setup from 3 days to 4 hours
Description
Scripted the local environment and replaced the wiki page with a single command. The last two joiners shipped on day one instead of day four, and nobody has been pulled off their work to help since.
Skills suggested by AI from the description. Accept, drop or add your own.
AI does the filing, not the judging
The reason evidence systems fail is not that people will not write things down. It is that tagging what you wrote against a taxonomy is dull, and everyone stops. So Impact Plan reads the description and proposes the links.
Behaviours
Which of your expectations this is evidence of. The suggestion is yours to accept or ignore, and the assessment stays your call.
Skills
What the work actually used, drawn from a shared catalogue so two people's records are comparable instead of each inventing their own vocabulary.
Goals
Which key result it moved, picked from the open cycles. Linking to the number rather than the objective is what makes a contribution checkable.
What AI never does
It does not rate anybody, rank anybody, or decide whether a behaviour has been demonstrated. Those are judgments, they are recorded as yours, and the audit log says so. A system that scored people from their own write-ups would produce exactly the incentive you do not want.
Your part is one click
Submitted evidence lands in your inbox. You read two lines, add a comment if it is worth one, and approve. Approved evidence is what everything else counts: the growth plan, the skill levels, the review.
- Anything you write yourself is approved the moment you save it
- Editing an approved entry sends it back for approval, so the record cannot drift after the fact
- Works from a phone, which is where most approvals actually happen
Or hand it to your assistant: approving evidence is one of the 31 MCP write tools, so "approve everything pending from my team" is a sentence rather than a screen.
One entry, four things updated
This is why the filing matters. A win that is linked is not just a diary entry — it is the input to everything else.
The growth plan moves. Readiness against the target recalculates, and the behaviour it evidenced changes state if you say so.
The review gains a paragraph. Dated, in their words, with what it achieved and what it proved.
The next check-in has material. Evidence since the last meeting is already on the agenda when you open it.
The goal shows who moved it. The key result carries a link back to the work that shifted the number.
Stop writing reviews from memory.
Set up your first report in about ten minutes. Free forever for teams of five.
No credit card. Your reports never pay.