Lab 1
Run a calibration that changes a rating - correctly
Scenario
In Acme’s mid-year cycle, Luis rated technician Dana Okafor 3/5 while rating his whole team a full point below Jordan’s team average - the classic tough grader. Separately, an employee has submitted an ombudsman report about weekend-shift assignment fairness. Handle both with the record intact.
Steps
- 1
Open the cycle dashboard after manager reviews close and compare rating distributions by manager.
Expected: Luis’s team averages 2.8; Jordan’s averages 3.9 - a distribution gap worth calibrating, visible before anyone was told anything.
- 2
Hold the calibration session and adjust Dana’s rating from 3 to 4, recording the rationale ("rating normalized across managers; Dana’s output matches 4-rated peers").
Expected: The calibration adjustment is recorded separately from Luis’s original rating.
- 3
Record final decisions for the cycle, then have managers deliver conversations.
Expected: Dana is told 4/5 once, after calibration - never a number that later changes.
- 4
Separately: as the ombudsman handler, open the shift-fairness report (submitted anonymously) and note the triaged category and severity.
Expected: The case shows category/severity from triage; the reporter’s identity is absent everywhere.
- 5
Verify access control: attempt to view the case list as a line manager (Luis).
Expected: Denied - ombudsman cases are invisible to non-privileged roles.
- 6
Work the case: investigate shift assignment data, record findings and the fix (rotation policy), and resolve the case. Check the risk dashboard.
Expected: The dashboard reflects one resolved fairness case - as a pattern data point, not a person.
Checkpoints - you got it right if…
- Dana’s original rating and the calibration adjustment both exist in the record, with rationale
- No rating was communicated before calibration completed
- The anonymous report stayed anonymous through triage, handling, and the dashboard
- A non-privileged user was denied access to case data