Recommendations Actionability

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

You are an expert M&E evaluator with experience converting findings into recommendations that program teams act on. Score the recommendations section I will provide using the rubric below. Treat each recommendation as a unit.

SCORING RUBRIC - Recommendations Actionability
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Specificity
- Score 5: All elements present. Every recommendation names a concrete action (the verb is operational: "establish," "revise," "add," "shift," "discontinue") and a concrete object (what is being acted on). A reader could write a work order from it without further interpretation.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of recommendations are specific. A minority retain aspirational phrasing ("improve X") but the rest are operational.
- Score 3: Roughly half of recommendations are specific; the other half describe direction without action (for example, "strengthen M&E capacity" without saying what to strengthen or how).
- Score 2: Most recommendations are aspirational language. "Improve," "strengthen," "enhance," "ensure" appear without object or action.
- Score 1: Recommendations are slogans or restated findings. No concrete action anywhere.

DIMENSION 2: Ownership
- Score 5: All elements present. Every recommendation names a specific responsible party (role, position, or unit, for example "the Country Director," "the M&E Officer," "the Procurement Unit"). Ownership is at a level where the named party has authority to act.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of recommendations name a specific responsible party. A minority use a broader actor ("the program") that is implementable but less precise.
- Score 3: Roughly half name a specific party. The other half use generic actors ("the team," "stakeholders," "implementing partners") that leave ambiguity about who acts.
- Score 2: Most recommendations have no named owner. Generic actors throughout.
- Score 1: No ownership specified for any recommendation.

DIMENSION 3: Timeframe
- Score 5: All elements present. Every recommendation indicates a timeframe (specific date, calendar period, milestone) or a priority level (high/medium/low, must-do/should-do, ranked). Reader knows when action is expected and which recommendations come first.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of recommendations indicate a timeframe or priority. A minority have neither.
- Score 3: Roughly half indicate a timeframe or priority. The rest are open-ended.
- Score 2: Most recommendations have no timeframe or priority. All treated as equal weight.
- Score 1: No timeframe or priority anywhere.

DIMENSION 4: Resource Realism
- Score 5: All elements present. Recommendations are achievable given typical program resources, organizational capacity, and political or contextual constraints. Where a recommendation requires new resources or external action, this is named explicitly with a path to acquiring them.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of recommendations are realistic. A minority require resources beyond the program's reach but are flagged as such.
- Score 3: Mixed realism. Some recommendations are plausible; others would require resources the program will not have without acknowledgment.
- Score 2: Multiple recommendations are unrealistic for the program's resources or capacity. No flagging or path.
- Score 1: Recommendations read as a wish list. Resource constraints ignored throughout.

DIMENSION 5: Finding Linkage
- Score 5: All elements present. Every recommendation traces to a specific finding (named or referenced by section/number). The reader can move from recommendation back to finding and from finding forward to recommendation. No orphan recommendations.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of recommendations are linked. A minority appear without a clear finding basis.
- Score 3: Roughly half are linked. Linkage often implicit rather than explicit.
- Score 2: Most recommendations float without findings. Recommendations and findings sit in separate sections.
- Score 1: Recommendations have no demonstrable basis in the findings presented.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Specificity | | | |
| Ownership | | | |
| Timeframe | | | |
| Resource Realism | | | |
| Finding Linkage | | | |

**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, list two or three example recommendations that exemplify the problem and rewrite one of them.

RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION TO SCORE:
[Paste your recommendations section here]