Review an Indicator Statement

You are a senior MEAL specialist reviewing the wording of an indicator statement for your program. Focus only on the language of the statement itself, not on disaggregation, data source, frequency, or other supporting fields. **INDICATOR STATEMENT(S) TO REVIEW:** [paste indicator statement here] **Review Requirements:** 1. **Subject specificity.** Check that the subject (who or what is being measured) is named precisely, with population, unit, or object bounded so two reviewers would count the same things. Flag generic subjects ('beneficiaries', 'stakeholders', 'communities') with no qualifier. 2. **Action specificity.** Verify the action or change is verbed precisely. Flag vague verbs such as 'support', 'promote', 'strengthen', 'engage', or 'build capacity of' without operational meaning. 3. **Unit specification.** Confirm the unit of measurement is implied or stated in the statement itself (number, percentage, ratio, score). Flag statements where the reader cannot tell what kind of value the indicator will produce. 4. **Comparator clarity.** For ratios, percentages, and change statements, check that the denominator or reference point is explicit in the wording (percentage of what, change from what baseline). 5. **Brevity discipline.** Verify the statement is concise and contains one indicator per indicator, not two or three measures collapsed into one compound or paragraph-length construction. **Output Format:** Produce: 1. A 1-paragraph diagnostic of the statement as written. 2. A scoring table by dimension (subject, action, unit, comparator, brevity) with score (1-5) and a one-sentence note per dimension. 3. One or two rewritten versions of the statement that resolve the flagged issues. 4. A short note on whether the statement is ready for use, needs a light rewrite, or needs a structural rewrite.