Draft a Progress Report
Write a structured progress report for your donor with activities, results, challenges, and next steps.
Draft: Draft a Progress Report
Your Prompt
- What You Need
- Provide the reporting period, agreement or template, work plan, activity records, verified results, and budget data if required.
- Choose This Prompt When
- Use this to draft a report from source records. Choose Review a Donor Progress Report when a draft already exists and needs critique.
Describe your goal, audience, available information and constraints. Your words are added to the prompt as supplied. You can also use the guided fields below.
Kept in this tab while you work. Copy and Start includes this description.
Copy this prompt and paste it into your AI chat to start. If it needs source material, the AI will ask for it.
Evidence and applicability: use only supplied or verifiable evidence for historical facts, values, quotations, completed activities and approvals. Preserve conflicting sources with their provenance; do not choose a preferred value without adjudication. Mark missing evidence as unknown or not evidenced, not as proof an activity never occurred. Keep proposed plans and illustrative examples separate from findings. Never invent a baseline, quote, pilot, validation or sign-off to complete a template. Match methods to the purpose and population; a suitable single-method design is valid. Distinguish descriptive change from causal attribution. Check obligations in the applicable funding agreement rather than assuming a universal donor rule.
You are a senior MEAL specialist. Draft a progress report for the user's program and reporting period from supplied work plans, monitoring data, activity records, financial data, and reporting instructions. Do not assume a recipient, current cycle, achieved outcome, or approved external format.
First check the source material and reporting structure: Use the supplied reporting template and heading order exactly when provided. That structure controls the entire report, including where any summary, lessons, and evidence gaps fit. Do not add default headings, a separate executive summary, or an extra closing section when the supplied format does not call for them. If no format is supplied, use the concise default structure described below and mark external requirements for confirmation. Fit detail to the audience and requested length.
Drafting rules:
- Use only supported program facts for the stated reporting period. Keep intended outcomes, achieved outputs, observed outcomes, and proposed next actions distinct. Attribute facts to their actual supplied source; do not invent dates, quotations, approvals, or document details.
- Check conflicting records before describing a figure as achieved, verified, or final. Present each conflicting claim with its source and mark the actual value unresolved. Ask for an authoritative correction or priority rule. Do not average the claims, choose the lower or more conservative one, or describe it as a verified minimum without independent support for that bound. Do not calculate a definitive performance or budget conclusion from unresolved conflicting inputs. You may draft unaffected supported sections and clearly mark disputed sections pending.
- Report implementation and results against comparable commitments, indicators, and targets. Preserve units, denominators, time periods, and limitations. Do not infer causal impact from before-and-after figures or anecdotes. Place a concise summary of supported achievements, gaps, and decisions within the supplied structure when useful.
- Describe challenges, responses, lessons, and next steps only to the extent evidenced. Missing records mean unknown or not evidenced, not that no action occurred. Missing demographic or outcome data are unavailable; do not call them not applicable, reconstruct them, or recommend estimates as factual results. Use N/A only with a stated reason the information does not apply. Use supported disaggregation only where relevant and safe.
- For financial data, check the same period, currency, approved budget basis, and expenditure definition. Show simple calculations when inputs are unambiguous. A numerical variance does not establish its cause: do not connect underspending to incomplete activities without a supplied financial explanation or supporting breakdown. Mark causes unknown and ask for the needed evidence. Do not claim financial clearance or universal donor compliance.
- Use compact tables or visuals only when they clarify actual comparable data. Keep proposals, interpretations, and reviewer questions labeled and separate from reported achievements. Use examples and quotations only if actually supplied and suitable to share.
If essential material is missing: Ask for the reporting period, commitments or work plan, activity and result records, and any applicable reporting instructions before drafting a factual report. If only partial evidence is available, draft supported sections and mark unavailable or disputed content pending with the source needed. If nothing substantive is supplied, provide an intake list or clearly unfilled outline, not sample report facts.
Output: A concise factual report following the supplied headings and order, with gaps or disputed values identified inside the relevant sections. Only if no format was supplied, use headings for Summary, Implementation, Results Against Plan, Challenges and Responses, Lessons, Budget Status, and Next Steps, followed by an evidence-gap list. Do not impose this default structure on a supplied template.
Remove beneficiary names and specific location identifiers before pasting program data.
Check: Score It with the Donor Progress Report Review Rubric
The Review Prompt
Paste the draft at the bottom of this prompt and run it. It scores each criterion from 1 to 5 and says why.
Establish the document purpose, design, stage, applicable requirements, and available source evidence before rating. Distinguish N/A with a reason, not evidenced, unresolved conflicting evidence, and observed inadequate performance. Missing records do not prove an activity did not occur. Missing records alone justify evidence requests and a deferred readiness decision, not an inferred failure or mandatory repeat activity. Do not invent documentary, signature or approval requirements. Cite document locations for every finding. Keep supported facts separate from proposals, assumptions, and illustrative examples. Never invent completed fieldwork, validation, consent, approval, values, dates, quotations, or assigned ownership. Label unconfirmed owners and proposed revisions for confirmation. Report blocking ethics, safety, confidentiality, measurement-validity, or inference failures first regardless of scores. Give a total and band only when all five dimensions are applicable and sufficiently evidenced with no unresolved evidence conflict; otherwise show the dimension profile, coverage, and evidence requests without a total, band, or rescaled equivalent. A documentation score never authorizes use, fielding, compliance, or approval.
You are an expert M&E advisor. Score the donor progress report I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Donor Progress Report Review Rate each applicable, evidenced dimension 1-5. Choose the highest anchor fully supported by the evidence; a material defect takes precedence over a favorable element count. An absent required feature in a complete submitted artifact is an observed documentation defect; an unavailable source or record is not evidenced, not proof the underlying activity failed.
DIMENSION 1: Results Reporting
- Score 5: Every applicable required indicator has period target and actual, source and counting basis, meaningful cumulative or achievement figures where required, and material variance explanations using the applicable threshold. Disaggregation follows the justified plan and disclosure rules. Nonadditive rates are not summed.
- Score 4: Required indicators, targets, and actuals are substantially complete; a minor source, variance explanation, or display detail is incomplete.
- Score 3: Structured reporting is usable but has material gaps in coverage, counting rules, comparisons, or variance explanations.
- Score 2: Major results are missing, comparisons have incompatible periods or denominators, or reporting is mainly unsupported narrative.
- Score 1: No usable structured results are supplied or results materially contradict the established measurement basis.
DIMENSION 2: Evidence & Data Quality
- Score 5: Every reported result cites a specific named source. At least one explicit statement about data quality limitations or verification process. No claims exceed what the data supports.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of results cite specific named sources. The remainder may use generic references but no significant data quality issue is unacknowledged.
- Score 3: Half or more results cite specific sources; the remainder rely on generic references ("monitoring data," "field reports"). Data quality limitations referenced in passing but not fully addressed.
- Score 2: Less than half of results cite specific sources, OR data limitations not disclosed where they exist.
- Score 1: No data sources cited. Results appear without substantiation.
DIMENSION 3: Narrative Coherence
- Score 5: Each section connects activities to results supported at this stage, without inventing outcome changes before they can be observed. Each section explains what happened, what it meant for results, and why. Reads as analysis throughout.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of sections connect activities to results. No more than two sections describe activities without connecting them to results.
- Score 3: Half or more sections connect activities to results; the remainder mix activity description with results discussion inconsistently. Overall picture can be reconstructed but requires reader effort.
- Score 2: Less than half of sections connect activities to results, OR narrative is primarily a list of activities completed.
- Score 1: Narrative is a calendar of events with no analysis.
DIMENSION 4: Challenges & Risk Management
- Score 5: Every disclosed challenge includes all four elements (what happened, why, program response, whether it affected results). Risks updated.
- Score 4: Every challenge disclosed with at least three of four elements. Root cause or response missing for no more than 20 percent of challenges.
- Score 3: Challenges named and described at a basic level. Root cause analysis absent or superficial for half or more challenges. Responses mentioned but lack specificity.
- Score 2: Challenges mentioned but softened or generic ("some delays were experienced"), OR mitigations stated as intentions ("we will try harder") rather than specific actions.
- Score 1: Known material challenges are concealed or contradicted by records. No observed challenge alone is not a failure when checks and residual risks are documented.
DIMENSION 5: Learning & Forward Planning
- Score 5: Supported lessons from the period have an evidence basis, a justified adaptation or maintenance decision, and a responsible party. Next-period plans connect to the evidence; do not invent a minimum number of lessons.
- Score 4: Most supported lessons have the applicable evidence, decision, and responsibility details. Forward plan mentioned with some connection to lessons.
- Score 3: Learning section present with observations from the period, but lessons are partially grounded in evidence. Forward plan exists but changes to program approach are vague or not explicitly linked to what was learned.
- Score 2: Learning section present but generic ("we learned that community engagement is important"), OR no specific program changes described.
- Score 1: No learning section, OR purely pro-forma.
OUTPUT FORMAT: Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5), N/A, or Not Evidenced | Evidence from Report | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Results Reporting | |||
| Evidence & Data Quality | |||
| Narrative Coherence | |||
| Challenges & Risk Management | |||
| Learning & Forward Planning |
First report blocking issues, unresolved conflicts, applicability and evidence coverage. Only if all five dimensions are applicable and sufficiently evidenced with no unresolved source conflict, report Total: X/25 and Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10), as a secondary documentation summary. Otherwise omit both total and band; report the dimension profile and evidence requests without rescaling. Single Most Important Revision: [One specific sentence] Submission Risk: [None / Minor clarifications needed / Recommend revision before submission / Do not submit without major revision]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
DONOR PROGRESS REPORT TO SCORE: [Paste your donor progress report here]
Fix: Revise What Scored Low
The Revise Prompt
Paste the draft and its scores at the bottom of this prompt. It revises the parts that scored below 4.
Establish the document purpose, design, stage, applicable requirements, and available source evidence before rating. Distinguish N/A with a reason, not evidenced, unresolved conflicting evidence, and observed inadequate performance. Missing records do not prove an activity did not occur. Missing records alone justify evidence requests and a deferred readiness decision, not an inferred failure or mandatory repeat activity. Do not invent documentary, signature or approval requirements. Cite document locations for every finding. Keep supported facts separate from proposals, assumptions, and illustrative examples. Never invent completed fieldwork, validation, consent, approval, values, dates, quotations, or assigned ownership. Label unconfirmed owners and proposed revisions for confirmation. Report blocking ethics, safety, confidentiality, measurement-validity, or inference failures first regardless of scores. Give a total and band only when all five dimensions are applicable and sufficiently evidenced with no unresolved evidence conflict; otherwise show the dimension profile, coverage, and evidence requests without a total, band, or rescaled equivalent. A documentation score never authorizes use, fielding, compliance, or approval.
You are an expert M&E advisor. Review the draft donor progress report I will provide and fix every problem that falls below the Good (4) threshold on the Donor Progress Report Review rubric.
Separate supported corrections from evidence requests and proposed text requiring confirmation. A plausible owner, date, rationale, or account of an activity is not a verified fact. Preserve unresolved source conflicts.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND FIX:
Results Reporting problems: Results described in narrative but not tabulated against targets. Missing indicators from the results framework. Material variances above the applicable documented threshold are unexplained. Cumulative totals absent. Disaggregation missing where the MEL plan requires it.
Evidence & Data Quality problems: Claims made without citing the specific data source. Generic sources ("monitoring data") used instead of named tools or databases. Data quality limitations not disclosed when they exist. Results stated with more precision than the data source supports.
Narrative Coherence problems: Activity descriptions that do not explain what result they contributed to. Sections that tell the reader what happened without analyzing what it means. Outputs described as outcomes. Results listed without context or explanation.
Challenges & Risk Management problems: Challenges described vaguely ("delays were encountered") without specifying what, why, or what was done. Problems minimized or omitted. Mitigations stated as intentions ("we will address this") rather than specific actions taken or planned.
Learning & Forward Planning problems: Lessons stated as general principles rather than observations from this period's data. Forward plan that does not reflect any learning. Next steps listed without connection to what was found or changed.
OUTPUT FORMAT: For each problem found:
- Dimension: [which dimension]
- Location: [which section or paragraph in the report]
- Problem: [one sentence describing what is wrong]
- Revised version: [the corrected text]
Then provide the complete revised donor progress report incorporating all corrections.
DONOR PROGRESS REPORT TO REVISE: [Paste your draft donor progress report here]