MEL Data Flow Diagram Quality

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert M&E advisor specializing in data management systems. Score the MEL data flow diagram I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - MEL Data Flow Diagram Quality
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Completeness of Flow
- Score 5: Every stage from raw data source to decision-maker is shown. The flow covers collection, entry, storage, cleaning, analysis, reporting, and use. No step is implied; every transition between stages is drawn or described. Both routine and one-off data products (e.g., baseline, endline, ad hoc analyses) are accounted for.
- Score 4: All major stages from source to use are shown. No more than one transition is implied rather than drawn. Routine data products covered; one-off products may be referenced without full detail.
- Score 3: Source-to-use path recognizable but at least two transitions are implied or missing. A reader can follow the general direction but must infer where data goes between named steps. Only routine flows shown.
- Score 2: Half or more transitions are missing or jumpy. The flow stops at storage or reporting rather than reaching the decision-maker, OR collection is shown but analysis and use are not.
- Score 1: No end-to-end flow. Diagram shows a list of tools or steps without connections, or covers only one segment (e.g., collection only).

DIMENSION 2: Role Assignment Clarity
- Score 5: A named position is assigned at every transition point. Every box and every arrow has a clear owner. Handovers between positions are explicit (who passes to whom). Supervision or approval roles named where relevant (e.g., who signs off on cleaned data).
- Score 4: Named positions assigned at no fewer than 80 percent of transition points. The remainder show a unit (e.g., "M&E team") rather than a specific position. Major handovers explicit.
- Score 3: Named positions assigned at half or more transition points. The remainder show unit-level ownership or no owner at all. Handovers between positions implied rather than stated.
- Score 2: Named positions appear at fewer than half of transition points, OR all ownership is assigned at unit level ("the team," "M&E staff") rather than position level.
- Score 1: No roles assigned. The diagram shows tools and arrows but no one owns any step.

DIMENSION 3: System Specification
- Score 5: Every storage and transfer point names a specific tool or platform (e.g., "KoboToolbox Form A1," "PowerBI Dashboard v2," "shared OneDrive folder /MEL/2026/"). No generic placeholders ("project records," "the database"). File formats and transfer methods named where relevant.
- Score 4: Specific tools named at no fewer than 80 percent of storage and transfer points. The remainder use slightly generic labels (e.g., "field tablet") but the tool category is clear.
- Score 3: Specific tools named at half or more storage and transfer points. The remainder use generic labels ("project database," "spreadsheet") with no further specification.
- Score 2: Tools labeled generically for half or more points ("project records," "M&E system"), OR multiple distinct systems are collapsed into a single undifferentiated box.
- Score 1: No specific tools named. Diagram shows abstract stages only.

DIMENSION 4: Quality Gates and Verification
- Score 5: Validation, cleaning, and review steps are drawn as explicit nodes in the flow with named owners and stated triggers. At least one verification step (spot-check, supervisor review, or DQA) is shown before data is used for analysis or reporting. Error-handling path shown for rejected or flagged data.
- Score 4: Validation and cleaning steps are explicit with named owners. Verification step shown before use, though one element (frequency, sample size, or error-handling path) is unspecified.
- Score 3: At least one quality gate is shown (typically cleaning or supervisor review), but it is referenced as a step rather than detailed with owner and trigger. No error-handling path.
- Score 2: Quality gates implied through general statements ("data will be cleaned") rather than drawn into the flow. No named owner or trigger for any check.
- Score 1: No quality gates shown. Data moves from collection to reporting with no verification step.

DIMENSION 5: Feasibility and Context Fit
- Score 5: The flow is realistic given the staffing, geography, connectivity, and reporting cycles described elsewhere in the MEL plan. Field-level steps account for connectivity constraints (e.g., offline data capture with later sync). Frequency of each transfer aligns with the reporting calendar. Workload at each named position is plausible.
- Score 4: Flow is realistic overall. One feasibility concern is unaddressed (e.g., a daily sync requirement in a low-connectivity area), but the rest of the flow accounts for context.
- Score 3: Flow is conceptually sound but feasibility is partially addressed. Two or more steps assume conditions (connectivity, staff time, device access) that are not justified by the broader plan.
- Score 2: Flow is unrealistic at multiple points (e.g., real-time dashboards in a paper-based field operation, or daily entry workload that exceeds named staff capacity).
- Score 1: Flow is detached from operational reality. The diagram describes an idealized system with no relationship to documented staffing or context.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Completeness of Flow | | | |
| Role Assignment Clarity | | | |
| System Specification | | | |
| Quality Gates and Verification | | | |
| Feasibility and Context Fit | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

DATA FLOW DIAGRAM TO SCORE:
[Paste your Data flow diagram or section from a MEL plan (narrative + visual, or text description) here]