Findings-to-Recommendations Quality

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 actionable recommendations across program contexts. Score the findings and recommendations of the document I will provide using the rubric below. The document may be an evaluation report, donor progress report, contribution analysis, learning brief, monitoring brief, case study, or any document where findings should drive recommendations.

SCORING RUBRIC - Findings-to-Recommendations Quality
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Findings Specificity and Evidence Base
- Score 5: All four elements present. Findings are concrete and avoid vague statements like "the project achieved results." Each finding cites specific evidence (data point, quote, observation, document reference) supporting it. Strength of evidence is indicated where it varies (strong, moderate, suggestive). Findings are disaggregated where relevant (by group, geography, time, sub-population).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Findings concrete and evidenced; strength of evidence or disaggregation partial.
- Score 3: Findings stated with some evidence but mixed specificity. Strength of evidence not flagged. Disaggregation absent where it would matter.
- Score 2: Findings are general claims with thin evidence. No disaggregation.
- Score 1: Findings are vague assertions with no traceable evidence base.

DIMENSION 2: Evidence-to-Recommendation Linkage
- Score 5: All four elements present. Each recommendation traces to specific findings (named or referenced) rather than floating in isolation. Linkage is bidirectional: the reader can move from finding to recommendation and from recommendation back to the findings that generated it. No orphan recommendations: every recommendation has an evidentiary basis. No orphan findings of high importance: key findings translate into recommendations.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Most recommendations linked; bidirectionality or coverage of key findings partial.
- Score 3: Some recommendations linked to findings but linkage logic is implicit. A few recommendations float without clear evidence base. Some major findings have no associated recommendation.
- Score 2: Recommendations and findings sit in separate sections with little explicit linkage. Multiple orphan recommendations.
- Score 1: Recommendations have no demonstrable basis in the findings presented.

DIMENSION 3: Recommendation Specificity and Actionability
- Score 5: All four elements present. Recommendations are specific and avoid vague phrasing like "improve X" or "strengthen Y." Each recommendation names what to do, by whom, and by when. Recommendation level matches decision authority: recommendations to project staff differ in scope from recommendations to donors or government counterparts. Recommendations are operationalizable: a reader could act on them without further translation or interpretation.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Recommendations specific and actionable; ownership level or operationalizability partial.
- Score 3: Recommendations describe direction but lack who and when. Level of authority not clearly matched. Some translation needed before action.
- Score 2: Recommendations are aspirational language ("strengthen capacity") without concrete actions.
- Score 1: Recommendations are restated findings or generic platitudes.

DIMENSION 4: Prioritization and Feasibility
- Score 5: All four elements present. Priorities are indicated among recommendations (high/medium/low, must-do/should-do, or ranked) rather than treating all as equal weight. Feasibility is considered (resources available, timing, organizational capacity, political constraints). Trade-offs between recommendations are addressed where they conflict or compete for the same resources. Sequencing or dependencies are noted (what must happen before what).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Priorities and feasibility addressed; trade-offs or sequencing partial.
- Score 3: Some prioritization signal but not systematic. Feasibility lightly considered. Trade-offs and sequencing absent.
- Score 2: All recommendations treated as equal weight. Feasibility not considered.
- Score 1: No prioritization, feasibility, or sequencing thinking visible.

DIMENSION 5: Ownership and Accountability
- Score 5: All four elements present. Each recommendation has a named owner (specific role or position, not "the team" or "stakeholders"). Follow-up cadence is specified (when progress will be reviewed, by whom, in what forum). Accountability mechanism is documented (how progress is tracked, what happens if recommendations are not implemented). A mechanism exists for revising recommendations as conditions change.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Owner named and cadence set; accountability or revision mechanism partial.
- Score 3: Some owners named but inconsistently. Cadence vague. No tracking or revision mechanism.
- Score 2: Ownership left to "the team" or unspecified actors. No cadence.
- Score 1: No ownership, cadence, or accountability mechanism.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| Findings Specificity and Evidence Base | | | |
| Evidence-to-Recommendation Linkage | | | |
| Recommendation Specificity and Actionability | | | |
| Prioritization and Feasibility | | | |
| Ownership and Accountability | | | |

**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.

DOCUMENT TO SCORE:
[Paste your findings and recommendations section or full document here]