Worked Project: Illustrative Outputs

Status: Authored illustrative artifacts from the fictional source pack worked-project-input.md, HP-01 through HP-07. They were not generated by a skill run, external reviewer, or field assessment. They do not add source facts or approve actions. Dates and approvals absent from HP-01 through HP-07 remain unresolved.

This worked bundle follows the evaluation, measurement, and reporting stages. The reporting example deliberately uses the single-period branch because HP-03 and HP-06 provide no earlier period. For a separate two-period exercise, use the existing Sunvale normal reporting example; do not merge its fictional facts into Hillside.

Artifact 1: Prioritized evaluation questions

Purpose: Help the program director decide whether to repeat the course format and whether to consider follow-up visits. [HP-01]

Status: Proposed questions for review. No evaluation scope or questions were stated as approved in the source pack.

Priority	Primary question	Rationale and intended use	Evidence needed	Answerability and limits
1	How many of the 40 enrolled adults met the approved definition of course completion, and how does that compare with the cohort target?	Directly informs the director's repeat-course decision. [HP-01, HP-02]	Attendance register for all 40 IDs and five sessions; approved definition and target. [HP-02, HP-03]	Count is reported as 31/40. Reconcile the register before finalizing. This describes completion, not course effects.
2	How did participants who returned the feedback form answer whether the garden-practice demonstration was useful?	Provides limited feedback relevant to the director's decision. [HP-01, HP-04]	The 18 returned responses and the 24 invitations. [HP-04]	Describe respondents only. Selection reason is unknown and six responses are missing, so do not generalize to all 40.
Deferred	Did participants use the garden practices after the course?	Potentially relevant to future course design, but no use data are supplied. [HP-04, HP-07]	A defined use measure, observation period, source and authorized access would be needed.	Not answerable from this pack. Decide whether to design follow-up and obtain permissions first. Do not claim causal impact.

Artifact 2: Question-to-evidence matrix

Question	Construct/unit	Supplied source	Proposed method	Evidence status and limitation
Completion and target	Enrolled participant; 40 adults; January-March cohort	Attendance register; approved rule is at least four of five sessions; target 32/40. [HP-02]	Recount qualifying attendance for all 40 IDs, compare with supplied summary and target, and record any difference before reporting.	Source and rule supplied. Reconciliation is not recorded yet. A register check cannot establish later practice use. [HP-03]
Feedback usefulness	Returned feedback respondent; 18 returned of 24 invited	Question and Yes/No counts. [HP-04]	Tabulate return and response counts, then Yes/No among returns.	Counts supplied. Invitation selection and responses from six nonreturns are unknown. Respondent-only description, not population estimate.
Later practice use	Participant practice use after course	None supplied. [HP-04, HP-07]	No current procedure can answer this. If approved later, define measure/window, access and collection approach first.	Not assessable. Follow-up visit/contact permission is not supplied; confirm it before scheduling or contact.

Artifact 3: Short draft TOR

Draft status: For director review; not approved. Sources: HP-01 through HP-07.

Background and context: Hillside Kitchen Gardens ran a five-session demonstration course at two community gardens during January-March 2026. The attendance summary reports 31 completers among 40 enrolled adults. [HP-01, HP-03]
Purpose and intended use: Provide the program director with bounded evidence on cohort completion and returned participant feedback to inform whether to repeat the course format. Whether to add follow-up visits remains a decision. [HP-01]
Scope: The 40 adults enrolled in the January-March cohort; completion is at least four of five sessions. A follow-up-use outcome is outside the evidence available for this draft. [HP-02, HP-04]
Evaluation questions: Use the two prioritized questions above. The later-practice-use question is deferred pending a measure and access decision.
Methodology and evidence: Reconcile the 40 attendance records using the approved completion rule. Summarize the 18 returned feedback forms and separately report 24 invitations and six nonreturns. Do not infer a trend, representativeness, or causal effect. [HP-02 through HP-06]
Team and roles: Facilitators maintain attendance and the monitoring officer consolidates it. No evaluator, independent reviewer, or additional role was specified. [HP-05]
Deliverables and timing: A source-linked completion and feedback summary is proposed. Review date, any fieldwork dates, format beyond editable text, and approval path are not supplied.
Budget and logistics: Not supplied. Do not estimate cost or promise follow-up activity.
Ethics, safeguarding and data protection: Existing access is limited to the attendance, summary, report and feedback records named in HP-07. No permission for participant contact or site visits was supplied. Any additional access requires an authorization decision.
Governance and quality assurance: The program director is the named decision maker for repeating the course and considering a follow-up visit. Reconcile the attendance register before final reporting. Other approval roles and the discrepancy rule are not supplied. [HP-01, HP-03, HP-07]

Decisions before any expanded evaluation: Confirm review timing, whether the supplied desk review is sufficient, whether later-use measurement is wanted, the definition and period for any such measure, access/consent, time/budget, and who approves the plan. No comparison group is required or assumed by this descriptive scope.

Artifact 4: Illustrative TOR review and change record

Review status: Authored demonstration of a bounded review. It is not a run of the TOR-review skill or an independent reviewer result.

Critical Issues

None identified in this bounded draft. This does not certify the plan or data.

Important Issues

Attendance summary needs source reconciliation. HP-03 says no discrepancy review is recorded. Recount all 40 IDs against the approved four-of-five-session definition before finalizing the result. Do not treat the summary as verified.
Feedback cannot support a whole-cohort conclusion. Only 18 of 24 invited participants returned the form, and the reason for inviting 24 is unknown. Keep the result respondent-only and disclose six nonreturns.
Later-use claim is unsupported. No later-use measure, observation, permission or follow-up record is supplied. Remove any claim that the course changed practice; make follow-up a future decision.
Timing and approvals remain open. HP-01 supplies the director's decision role, but no review date, budget, additional fieldwork, contact permission, or other approval path is given. Keep these as decisions rather than commitments.

Minor Improvements

Preserve the approved indicator wording, four-of-five completion definition and cohort target when reusing the result. [HP-02]

Change record

Draft statement or gap	Change made in this illustration	Evidence/status
“Increasing steadily”	Removed. Only one cohort/period is supplied.	Trend is not assessable, not contradicted. [HP-03, HP-06]
“On track”	Replaced with actual-versus-end-target comparison.	Target is end-of-period, not time-phased. [HP-02, HP-06]
“Participants find the demonstrations useful”	Limited to returned forms and shown with nonresponse.	14 Yes, 4 No among 18 returns; 6 nonreturns. [HP-04]
“So we should add follow-up visits”	Reframed as a proposed decision for the director; no visit assigned.	No later-use data or authorization supplied. [HP-01, HP-04, HP-07]

Artifact 5: Indicator reference sheet

Number of enrolled participants completing the course

Indicator ID: Not supplied.
Approved indicator wording: Number of enrolled participants completing the course. [HP-02]
Result level: Not supplied.
Operational definition: Count enrolled adults with attendance at four or more of the five course sessions. [HP-02]
Numerator/formula: Number of unique enrolled IDs with at least four session attendances. The reported count is 31; verify against the register before use. [HP-03]
Denominator: 40 enrolled adults for the target attainment percentage; report the count indicator as a count, not a percentage unless the decision needs the rate. [HP-02]
Unit/population: Enrolled adult participant, 40 people, two community gardens. [HP-01, HP-02]
Observation period: January-March 2026 course; five sessions. [HP-01, HP-02]
Baseline: Not supplied. Do not invent zero.
Target: At least 32 completers of 40 by March 31, 2026, approved for this cohort. [HP-02]
Source/tool: Attendance register with 40 IDs and five session columns. [HP-02]
Collection role: Two facilitators maintain garden attendance records; monitoring officer consolidates. [HP-05]
Frequency: Attendance is recorded in the session register. Monthly summary and quarterly report are supplied in the data flow. Exact submission dates are not supplied. [HP-05]
Disaggregation: Not supplied. Do not introduce a reporting category without a decision and available data.
Quality checks: Proposed: reconcile all 40 IDs and five session entries to the 31-person summary; record any missing or conflicting entries. No completed reconciliation is evidenced. [HP-03]
Missing data treatment: Do not count a missing session entry as attended or not attended without an approved rule. The source does not describe missing-entry handling, so this is a decision needed before recount.
Limitations/use: Completion records course attendance only. It does not measure later practice use or course impact.
Change history: No source-approved definition or target change proposed. This sheet preserves HP-02.

The feedback question is a feedback measure, not an approved indicator. No target or population-wide inference is added for it.

Artifact 6: Workload matrix and practical M&E plan

Workload calculations

Role/task	Supplied rate and volume	Estimated workload	Available capacity	Assessment
Two facilitators, attendance records	2 × 15 minutes/week × 12 reporting weeks	360 minutes / 6 hours for quarter	2 × 30 minutes/week × 12 = 720 minutes / 12 hours	Estimate fits the stated time allowance. This is not evidence the records are complete. [HP-05]
Monitoring officer, Jan consolidation	20 minutes/month	20 minutes	90 minutes	70 minutes remain. [HP-05]
Monitoring officer, Feb consolidation	20 minutes/month	20 minutes	90 minutes	70 minutes remain. [HP-05]
Monitoring officer, Mar consolidation and report	20 + 45 minutes	65 minutes	90 minutes	25 minutes remain. [HP-05]
Monitoring officer, quarter total	20 + 20 + 65 minutes	105 minutes / 1 hour 45 minutes	3 × 90 = 270 minutes / 4 hours 30 minutes	Fits supplied quarterly capacity. New follow-up work is not included. [HP-05, HP-07]

Proposed practical plan

Measure/activity	Source and timing	Role	Check/use	Status and unresolved item
Record attendance and completion	Attendance register across five sessions in Jan-Mar	Facilitators record; monitoring officer consolidates	Recount using the four-of-five rule before quarterly report	Existing process per HP-02/05; actual reconciliation not yet recorded. Define treatment of missing entries if any are found.
Summarize participant feedback	24 invitations after final session; 18 returned	Monitoring officer, role proposed based on supplied consolidation role	Show invitations, returns, Yes/No counts and respondent-only shares	Existing counts supplied; invitation selection reason remains unknown. Do not generalize.
Decide whether to measure later practice use	No source/measure supplied	Decision owner is director for whether to consider follow-up; operational owner not supplied	Define construct, observation window, permission, tool and workload before proposing a method	Not approved or measured. No contact or visit assumed.

Coherence check

Indicator/target: Preserve the same four-of-five definition and 32/40 target in the reference sheet, plan, evaluation question and report. [HP-02]
Value/status: 31/40 is source-reported and awaits reconciliation. The plan must not call it verified; the report must retain that limitation. [HP-03]
Feedback: 24 invitations, 18 returns, 14 Yes, 4 No and 6 nonreturns must remain consistent wherever repeated. [HP-04]
Capacity: Existing attendance/consolidation/reporting estimates fit the stated capacity. Any follow-up visit, contact or tool-development time remains outside the calculation. [HP-05, HP-07]
Use/approval: The director's future decision is not an approval to add follow-up visits. Owner, date and budget are unresolved. [HP-01, HP-07]

Artifact 7: Evidence check, report revision and proposed actions

Evidence register and calculations

Source ID	Fact used	Check/limit
HP-02	40 enrolled; completion means at least 4/5 sessions; target 32 by Mar 31	Supplied approved rule and target.
HP-03	31 reported completers; no prior period; no discrepancy review recorded	`31/40 = 77.5%`; target attainment is `32/40 = 80%`; reported count is one participant and 2.5 percentage points below target. Reconcile before final use.
HP-04	24 invited; 18 returns; 14 Yes and 4 No	`18/24 = 75%` response. Among respondents: `14/18 = 77.8%` Yes and `4/18 = 22.2%` No. Six statuses are unknown, not negative.
HP-06	Draft says “increasing steadily” and “on track”	One period only; no trajectory or time-phased expectation supplied. Neither claim is assessable.
HP-04, HP-07	No later-practice-use data or contact authorization supplied	No later-use finding or contact plan can be claimed.

Revised report text

In January-March 2026, the attendance summary reports that 31 of 40 enrolled participants attended at least four of five sessions (77.5%). The supplied end-of-period target is 32 of 40 (80%), so the reported value is one participant below target. No reconciliation record is supplied; confirm the count before finalizing.

Eighteen of 24 invited participants returned the usefulness form. Fourteen respondents answered Yes and four answered No. Among respondents, 14/18 (77.8%) answered Yes. Six nonresponses remain, and the reason for inviting 24 rather than all 40 is not recorded. These answers are not an estimate for all participants.

A trend or “on track” judgment cannot be made from this single period. Later practice use was not measured in the supplied records.

Proposed action table

Evidence-linked issue	Proposed action	Owner/date/approval
Reported attendance-count reconciliation is not documented in the supplied records. [HP-03]	Recount the 40 records using the approved definition; record and resolve any missing/conflicting entries before publishing the cohort value.	Proposal. Owner/date not supplied.
Feedback has six nonreturns and undocumented invitation selection. [HP-04]	Retain denominator and respondent-only presentation; decide whether the invitation process should be documented for a future cohort.	Proposal. No approval supplied.
Later use is unmeasured and contact permission is not supplied; status is unconfirmed. [HP-04, HP-07]	Decide whether to define a follow-up measure, obtain required permission, and estimate time/resources before adding it to a future plan.	Decision required. Follow-up approval is not supplied; status is unconfirmed.

No action is marked accepted, assigned, or completed. No owner, deadline, cost, or causal finding is invented.

Source: M&E Studio, monitoringevaluationstudio.com. Guide and fictional attachment use is governed by the existing free-content terms; public plugin files retain their separate MIT license.