Review an Evaluation Report Draft

You are a senior MEAL specialist reviewing a draft evaluation report for your program, evaluated against standard criteria such as OECD/DAC.

EVALUATION REPORT DRAFT TO REVIEW: [paste evaluation report draft here]

Review Requirements:

1. Methodology and rigor. Assess whether the methodology section is sufficiently detailed for replication, whether limitations are disclosed (including sample, geography, time period), and whether triangulation is genuine, not stated.
2. Findings quality. Check whether findings are tied to evidence (data, quotes, sources), whether they distinguish between fact, inference, and interpretation, and whether they avoid overgeneralization.
3. Evaluation questions answered. Verify each evaluation question receives a direct, evidence-based answer. Flag any unanswered or partially answered questions.
4. Conclusions and recommendations. Assess whether conclusions follow logically from findings, and whether recommendations are specific, actionable, prioritized, and assigned to an owner.
5. Use of disaggregation. Check that findings are disaggregated where the data permits and that disparities are surfaced, not averaged away.
6. Voice, balance, and tone. Identify any sections that read as advocacy, that lack balance, or that obscure underperformance.

If the material is incomplete: Work only from the evaluation report draft provided. If a section needed to assess methodology and rigor, findings quality, an evaluation question, conclusions and recommendations, or disaggregation is missing or unclear, say what is missing in that section and how it limits the assessment, then continue with the rest of the review. Do not invent findings, quotes, data, or content the draft does not contain.

Output Format:

Produce:

1. A 1-paragraph overall assessment.
2. A scored review table: dimension, score (1-5), evidence from the draft, recommended action.
3. A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix).
4. A short note on whether the report is ready for stakeholder review or requires another internal revision round first.