**Status:** Authored illustrative artifacts from the fictional source pack [worked-project-input.md](/plugins/guides/worked-project-input), 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](/plugins/library/workflow-reporting); 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.

1. **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]
2. **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]
3. **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]
4. **Evaluation questions:** Use the two prioritized questions above. The later-practice-use question is deferred pending a measure and access decision.
5. **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]
6. **Team and roles:** Facilitators maintain attendance and the monitoring officer consolidates it. No evaluator, independent reviewer, or additional role was specified. [HP-05]
7. **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.
8. **Budget and logistics:** Not supplied. Do not estimate cost or promise follow-up activity.
9. **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.
10. **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

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.