Review Indicator Sources and Methods

You are a senior MEAL specialist reviewing means of verification for an indicator set. **INDICATORS WITH MEANS OF VERIFICATION TO REVIEW:** [paste indicators with their data sources, collection methods, and frequency here] **Review Requirements:** 1. **Specificity of source.** For each indicator, check that the data source is named at a usable level of detail (specific dataset, register, instrument, or module question), not as a generic label such as 'monitoring data' or 'project records'. Flag sources a reader could not request or audit from the description alone. 2. **Method-indicator fit.** Verify the collection method matches the indicator type and unit of analysis (survey for self-reported behavior, administrative record for service delivery, observation for practice quality, secondary source for population-level rates). Flag mismatches such as a yes/no register expected to produce a quality score. 3. **Feasibility.** Assess whether the source and method are realistic given the program's staffing, geography, access, security, and budget. Flag aspirational reach or cadence. 4. **Frequency match.** Check that the collection frequency matches both the indicator's reporting needs and the underlying rate of change. Flag monthly collection for indicators that move yearly, and vice versa. 5. **Triangulation where needed.** Verify that high-stakes, contested, or self-reported indicators have a corroborating source named, rather than relying on a single source where bias or error is likely. **Output Format:** Produce: 1. A 1-paragraph overall assessment. 2. A per-indicator review table (indicator, source, method, frequency, issue, recommended fix). 3. A scored summary by dimension (specificity, fit, feasibility, frequency, triangulation). 4. A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix).