# TalentVerse Assessment Walkthrough — Sample Forms A–E ## About this document This document is a full-depth sample walkthrough of all five TalentVerse assessment input streams, using an anonymised senior leader persona. It maps which data sources feed which assessment dimensions, shows what TalentVerse surfaces to the employee at each step, and shows the sample narrative each form produces. The walkthrough covers Forms A through E across the Performance and Impact track and the Growth and Dialogue track. AACC (Aware, Align, Collaborate, Co-create) and IRTF (In-Search, Research, Think-Through, Follow-Through) are year-round cycles. The review surface makes their outputs visible. It does not start them. --- ## Persona: Marcus Tan Marcus Tan is Deputy Executive Director at the Learning Institute, holding grade Senior Leader with employee ID ES23001. His assessment scope covers all five core dimensions (D1 through D5) plus the three people manager dimensions (M1 through M3), assessed across both the Performance and Impact track and the Growth and Dialogue track. He has direct reports and is part of the 35 senior leaders cohort eligible for validated psychometric data. TalentVerse has the following existing data sources available for Marcus: BIPO HRMS (identity and org context), Profit.co OKR (objective and key result completion), Profit.co ePCG (competency ratings), PCG Forms, 360 Feedback Survey, RMRR Report, Job Profile, CV, Copilot ePCG, 1-on-1 Check-in Notes (21 files), and OCTAVE Events (JSON). All SharePoint eDossier documents are retrieved via the MS Graph API. Proposed sources, including MS Teams Transcription, LMS, Management Dashboard, MS Viva Insights, CRM, Impact Week App, iLevel, OCTAVE App, Psychometrics-Valid, Coaching Report, and MLP/MEP Reflections, are not yet live and are flagged throughout this document. The MT Journal has no sample available for Marcus. Four sources, Aura Photography, TimeWaver, Qi Men Dun Jia, and Consciousness Scale (Hawkins), are under review and excluded from assessment use. --- ## Data Source Inventory The table below lists all 28 data sources in the TalentVerse system, their category, integration status, and the primary dimensions they feed for Marcus. | Source | Category | Status | Primary dimensions fed | |---|---|---|---| | BIPO HRMS | System Data | Existing | Context for all dimensions | | Profit.co OKR | System Data | Existing | D1, M1 | | Profit.co ePCG | System Data | Existing | D4 | | SharePoint MS Graph API | System Data | Existing | Gateway for all eDossier sources | | MS Teams Transcription | System Data | Proposed | D1 (P), M2 (P) | | OCTAVE App | System Data | Proposed | D2 (P), D5 (P), M2 (P) | | LMS | System Data | Proposed | D2 (P), M2 (P) | | Management Dashboard | System Data | Proposed | M1 (P), M2 (P) | | MS Viva Insights | System Data | Proposed | D3 (P), M3 (P) | | CRM (Affinity/YeeFlow) | System Data | Proposed | D3 (P), D5 (P) | | Impact Week App | System Data | Proposed | D1 (P), D5 (P) | | iLevel | System Data | Proposed | D1 (P), D5 (P) | | PCG Forms | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D1, D4, M1 | | 360 Feedback Survey | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D3, M1, M3 | | RMRR Report | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D1, D4, D5 | | Job Profile | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | Context for all dimensions | | CV | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | Context for all dimensions | | Copilot ePCG | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D4, M1 | | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D2, M2, M3 | | OCTAVE Events | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D3 | | MT Journal | SharePoint eDossier | Existing | D4, D5 | | Psychometrics-Valid | SharePoint eDossier | Proposed | D2 (P), senior leaders only | | Coaching Report | SharePoint eDossier | Proposed | D2 (P), M2 (P) | | MLP/MEP Reflections | SharePoint eDossier | Proposed | D2 (P), D5 (P) | | Aura Photography ×3 | SharePoint eDossier | KIV-excluded | Not used — excluded from assessment | | TimeWaver | SharePoint eDossier | KIV-excluded | Not used — excluded from assessment | | 奇门遁甲 (Qi Men Dun Jia) | SharePoint eDossier | KIV-excluded | Not used — excluded from assessment | | Consciousness Scale (Hawkins) | SharePoint eDossier | KIV-excluded | Not used — excluded from assessment | --- ## Dimension Data Map — Performance and Impact Track The table below maps each assessment dimension to the specific data sources TalentVerse draws on to surface evidence for Marcus's Form A narrative. | Dimension | Primary sources | Supporting sources | Note | |---|---|---|---| | D1: Delivering Results and Impact | Profit.co OKR, RMRR Report, Impact Week App, iLevel | PCG Forms, MS Teams Transcription | Impact Week App, iLevel, and MS Teams Transcription are integration pending | | D2: Learning and Self-Cultivation | LMS, Coaching Report, MLP/MEP Reflections, OCTAVE App | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes, Psychometrics-Valid | All primary sources are integration pending. Psychometrics-Valid is integration pending and available to senior leaders only | | D3: Collaboration and Partnership | 360 Feedback Survey, OCTAVE Events, MS Viva Insights | MS Teams Transcription, CRM | MS Viva Insights, MS Teams Transcription, and CRM are integration pending | | D4: Stewardship and Accountability | Profit.co ePCG, Copilot ePCG, PCG Forms | RMRR Report, MT Journal | MT Journal has no sample available for Marcus | | D5: Innovation and Entrepreneurship | Impact Week App, iLevel, OCTAVE App | RMRR Report, MT Journal, CRM | Impact Week App, iLevel, OCTAVE App, and CRM are integration pending. MT Journal has no sample available for Marcus | | M1: Manage with Integrity | Management Dashboard, 360 Feedback Survey, Profit.co OKR | PCG Forms, Copilot ePCG | Management Dashboard is integration pending | | M2: Manage through Coaching | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes, Coaching Report, LMS | Form D upward feedback input, MS Teams Transcription | Coaching Report, LMS, and MS Teams Transcription are integration pending | | M3: Manage with Connection | 360 Feedback Survey, Form D upward feedback input, MS Viva Insights | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes | MS Viva Insights is integration pending | --- ## Dimension Data Map — Growth and Dialogue Track The table below maps each IRTF step to the growth signals TalentVerse surfaces for Marcus's Form B reflection. | IRTF Step | Purpose | Primary sources | Supporting sources | Note | |---|---|---|---|---| | In-Search | Noticing where growth edges are present | 360 Feedback Survey, MS Viva Insights, Coaching Report | OCTAVE Events, 1-on-1 Check-in Notes | MS Viva Insights and Coaching Report are integration pending | | Research | Investigating what the growth edge signals actually mean | Psychometrics-Valid, MLP/MEP Reflections, LMS | Coaching Report, Job Profile | Psychometrics-Valid, MLP/MEP Reflections, and LMS are integration pending. Psychometrics-Valid is available to senior leaders only | | Think-Through | Making honest sense of what Marcus owns and what to act on | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes, MT Journal, MLP/MEP Reflections | RMRR Report, Psychometrics-Valid | MLP/MEP Reflections and Psychometrics-Valid are integration pending. MT Journal has no sample available for Marcus | | Follow-Through | Committing to and tracking what changes next | LMS, Coaching Report, OCTAVE App | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes, Management Dashboard | LMS, Coaching Report, OCTAVE App, and Management Dashboard are integration pending | --- ## Section 1: Form A — Performance & Impact (Employee AACC Narrative) > Form A is the employee's self-authored narrative of their contribution across all assessment dimensions. TalentVerse surfaces evidence from the systems already in use. The employee narrates what they actually lived through the AACC cycle. This is not a reconstruction from memory. It is a review of decisions and actions that were already happening. --- ### D1: Delivering Results & Impact #### What TalentVerse surfaces Profit.co OKR shows three objective clusters active across the cycle: Institute programme delivery, strategic repositioning of the leadership development portfolio, and capability pipeline for TPC's Well-being Mandate. Across these clusters, 87% of key results reached their target completion threshold by end of cycle, with two KRs in the leadership portfolio cluster exceeding their original targets. The RMRR Report documents Marcus's central contribution to the Institute's Q3 strategic refresh, including a decision to retire two legacy programmes and redirect facilitation hours toward the new Resilience and Adaptive Leadership cohort. PCG Forms submitted during the cycle record three programme completion milestones and a mid-cycle scope change request that Marcus escalated and resolved with TPC's People Development division. Impact Week App (not yet live, integration pending) would provide attendance and participation completion data for Institute-led immersive events. iLevel (not yet live, integration pending) would surface post-programme capability shift scores from direct participants, giving a longitudinal view of impact beyond completion rates. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** At the start of the cycle, I was looking at a portfolio that was technically functional but strategically misaligned. The participation numbers from the previous cycle's flagship leadership programme had plateaued, and the post-programme reflection data we collected manually told a consistent story: participants felt the content was relevant, but the design did not meet them where the organisation actually was. TPC had been signalling a shift toward psychological safety and well-being as strategic priorities for close to eighteen months, and the Institute's programming had not yet moved to reflect that. I recognised that the real gap was not in facilitation quality or logistics. It was in how we were framing leadership development itself. I made a deliberate choice to treat this as a design problem, not an execution problem. That recognition shaped every resourcing decision I made in the first quarter. **Align** TPC's Well-being Mandate gave the Institute a clear directional signal, and I used it as a forcing function rather than a constraint. I had a conversation with the People Development division in late Q1 where we mapped the Institute's programme offering against the mandate's four priority domains. Two legacy programmes, the middle manager effectiveness series and the change leadership elective, did not map to any domain with sufficient fidelity to justify continued investment at the same resource level. I recommended retiring them. That was not a popular call internally, but the Profit.co OKR cycle gave me a structured way to make the trade-off visible and get alignment from the Institute's steering group. I realigned two senior facilitators toward the new Resilience and Adaptive Leadership cohort design, and I restructured the KR targets for the portfolio cluster to reflect the shift. The alignment work was upstream of any programme delivery. It happened in planning conversations, in how I wrote the OKR cycle brief, and in the choices I made about where my own facilitation hours went. **Collaborate** The Resilience and Adaptive Leadership cohort would not have launched in Q3 without the co-facilitation partnership I built with the Organisational Health team. I approached their head in Q2, not to commission content but to co-develop the programme architecture from scratch. We ran three design sprints together over six weeks. My role was to hold the learning design rigour and the facilitation sequence. Their role was to ground the content in the organisational health data they were already holding from their employee listening work. The PCG Forms record the formal milestones, but the actual work happened in shared documents and working sessions that never made it into any system. I also relied heavily on the Institute's two senior facilitators, who took on a larger share of the cohort's open-enrolment modules so that I could focus on the bespoke executive track. Enabling them to lead with confidence in those sessions required deliberate preparation work on my part: I ran three coaching-style briefings before each module rather than relying on the standard facilitator guide. **Co-create** By the end of the cycle, the Institute had a live Resilience and Adaptive Leadership cohort with two completed cohort runs and a third in flight. That programme did not exist at the start of the cycle. The design framework we co-created with the Organisational Health team is now a reusable asset. We have documented the co-design protocol as a methodology the Institute can apply to future bespoke programmes, which was not something we had before. The RMRR Report captures this at the strategic level, but the more meaningful output is the working relationship we built with Organisational Health. We now have a standing quarterly touchpoint to cross-reference programme themes with their listening data. The KR completion rate of 87% reflects the delivery outcomes, but the more durable value is the new capability the Institute now has to design with rather than design for. --- **Assessment Rating — D1: Delivering Results and Impact** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Primary sources active | | Rating | Transformative Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 20% | | Weighted contribution | 0.720 | --- ### D2: Learning & Self-Cultivation #### What TalentVerse surfaces For D2, the primary data sources are all integration pending. LMS (not yet live, integration pending) would surface Marcus's formal learning enrolments, completion records, and any assigned or self-directed learning pathways active during the cycle. Coaching Report (not yet live, integration pending) would provide a structured summary from Marcus's executive coach, including focus themes, progress markers, and the coach's assessment of growth edge movement. MLP/MEP Reflections (not yet live, integration pending) would surface written reflection submissions from any leadership programme cohort Marcus participated in as a learner rather than a facilitator. OCTAVE App (not yet live, integration pending) would provide event-level participation data for Marcus's own attendance at OCTAVE development sessions. In the absence of these integrations, TalentVerse draws on the 21 1-on-1 check-in note files available via the SharePoint MS Graph API, which document a consistent thread of inquiry across the cycle around Marcus's relationship with positional authority and his tendency to solve rather than hold space. Psychometrics-Valid (not yet live, integration pending, available to senior leaders only) would include SHL OPQ32 validated at six-month intervals, SHL MQ M5, MBTI Step II, and Enneagram, providing a structured personality and motivation lens to complement the check-in note evidence. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** The signal came from an unlikely place. In a 1-on-1 with one of my senior facilitators in late Q1, she told me, very directly, that when I walk into a design conversation, the room tends to wait. She did not frame it as a complaint. She framed it as a pattern she had noticed. I sat with that for longer than I expected to. I had always understood myself as a collaborative leader. I ran check-ins. I asked questions. I gave people room to speak. But what she was describing was something different: the weight of my presence in the room was doing work that I was not consciously directing, and it was narrowing the space for others to take real ownership. I recognised that this was not a facilitation technique problem. It was a leadership identity question. My Enneagram profile had flagged a version of this before, the Type 3 pattern of inadvertently displacing others while appearing to include them, but I had filed it as interesting rather than actionable. This time, I could not. **Align** The Institute's own learning philosophy holds that leaders develop most when they work at their edge, not inside their established competence. I had been designing programmes around that principle for years. I had not been applying it to myself with the same rigour. Aligning my learning choices to the Institute's direction meant being willing to model the practice publicly, not just endorse it. I made two deliberate choices. First, I enrolled in a six-month programme on facilitative leadership run by an external provider, one of the few contexts where I was unambiguously a learner and not a facilitator. Second, I restructured my 1-on-1 cadence with my direct reports to experiment with a new format: I would open each session with a question I was genuinely holding, not a question I already knew the answer to. That second choice was harder. It required me to show up without a prepared frame, which ran against everything I had trained myself to do as a programme designer. **Collaborate** The learning did not stay private. About halfway through the cycle, I brought the pattern I had been working on into a team reflection session. I described what my facilitator had told me in Q1, what I had been trying since then, and where I was still stumbling. The room was quiet for a moment, and then three people said versions of the same thing: they had noticed the pattern too, and they had not known whether it was safe to name it. That conversation opened something. Over the following two months, the team began checking in with each other about facilitation presence in a way they had not before. We started using a short debrief protocol after internal workshops, something the team named a "room-read," where we each rate how much space we felt able to take and where the energy sat. That protocol was not something I designed. It emerged from the conversation. I contributed the initial vulnerability. The team built the practice. **Co-create** By the close of the cycle, I had a more honest working theory of my own leadership presence than I had at the start. I had tested it in real programme contexts, received direct evidence from my facilitators and my own observations, and integrated it into how I contract with participants at the start of every bespoke cohort. The facilitator who named the pattern in Q1 has since taken on co-lead responsibility for two of the Institute's open-enrolment modules, a move that would not have happened if I had not made space differently. The "room-read" debrief protocol is now a standard close on all internal team workshops. These are small artefacts. But they are indicators that something shifted in the Institute's internal culture, not just in my own development arc. That shift is the output I care most about for this dimension. --- **Assessment Rating — D2: Learning and Self-Cultivation** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Supporting sources only | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 10% | | Weighted contribution | 0.320 | --- ### D3: Collaboration & Partnership #### What TalentVerse surfaces TalentVerse surfaces D3 evidence primarily from three sources. The 360 Feedback Survey, completed by nine respondents across the cycle (five peers, three direct reports, and one senior leader above Marcus), shows a consistent strength signal in the domains of cross-functional trust and stakeholder stewardship, with growth edge signals in two areas: the frequency of proactive outreach to stakeholders outside Marcus's established network, and the degree to which Marcus involves others in problem framing rather than problem solving. OCTAVE Events JSON records Marcus's participation across 14 OCTAVE sessions, including two external partner events and one cross-ministry learning exchange, providing a visible record of his relational investment across the Institute's broader ecosystem. MS Viva Insights (not yet live, integration pending) would provide collaboration network data including meeting load, after-hours activity, and network breadth across internal and external contacts, adding a structural layer to the qualitative 360 signals. MS Teams Transcription (not yet live, integration pending) would allow TalentVerse to surface dialogue patterns in key collaboration moments, including the frequency with which Marcus poses open questions versus directive statements in group settings. CRM (not yet live, integration pending) would track stakeholder touchpoints with external partners, including follow-up cadence and engagement continuity across the cycle. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** The 360 growth signal I did not expect was the one about proactive outreach. I had assumed my collaboration footprint was reasonably wide because I was present in a lot of cross-functional conversations. But the 360 data surfaced a pattern: the relationships I was investing in were largely the ones that had already been established. I was not growing the network. I was maintaining it. That distinction matters in a role like mine, where the Institute's relevance depends on staying ahead of where the organisation is heading, not just serving where it already is. I also recognised that this pattern was partly structural. My calendar was dense with programme delivery obligations, and the spaces I protected for relationship building were almost always with people I already knew well. The awareness came from sitting with the 360 data for long enough to see the shape of it rather than just the scores. **Align** The Institute's strategic positioning depends on its ability to read the organisation's capability needs before those needs become formal requests. That requires a different kind of stakeholder relationship than the ones that come through programme nominations and steering group membership. I made a deliberate choice to identify three relationships outside my established network that were strategically important for the Institute's next two years. The first was with the head of the Corporate Technology division, whose team was going through a significant capability shift and had not yet approached the Institute for support. The second was with TPC's Chief People Officer's office, specifically the team responsible for workforce planning. The third was with an external partner from a regional leadership development network I had met at the cross-ministry learning exchange recorded in OCTAVE. None of these relationships had a formal programme mandate behind them. I was investing in them because they were the right relationships for where the Institute was heading, not because there was an immediate deliverable attached. **Collaborate** The partnership that produced the most tangible output during the cycle was with the Corporate Technology division. I had three informal conversations with their head before we ever discussed the Institute formally. I spent that time understanding their transformation agenda, the capability gaps they were navigating, and the internal language they used to describe leadership challenges. When I eventually proposed a bespoke cohort, I was not pitching a programme. I was reflecting back what I had heard and offering to build something around it. They said yes within two weeks. The co-design process that followed was different from the Institute's standard approach because their team was involved from the first design sprint, not just the briefing stage. The 360 feedback from my peer in Corporate Technology reflects that experience directly: they noted that I gave their team genuine authorship, not just input. That shift in how I entered the relationship was deliberate, and it was informed by what I had learned from the D2 growth edge work running in parallel. **Co-create** The Corporate Technology cohort is the clearest co-created output from D3 this cycle. It is a twelve-month leadership development programme designed collaboratively between the Institute and the Corporate Technology division, with three completed modules at the time of this review. It would not exist without the relationship work that preceded it. The programme design model we used has since been proposed to the steering group as a template for all bespoke cohorts going forward, replacing the Institute's previous approach of designing internally and presenting externally for sign-off. The relationship with the workforce planning team in the CPO's office is still in early stages, but we have a standing quarterly briefing in place where I share the Institute's emerging programme themes and they share their workforce planning signals. That exchange did not exist at the start of the cycle. The external partner from the regional network has agreed to co-facilitate one session of the Resilience and Adaptive Leadership cohort in the next cycle. These are not large outputs by volume. They are the right outputs for the direction the Institute is moving. --- **Assessment Rating — D3: Collaboration and Partnership** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Primary sources active | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 10% | | Weighted contribution | 0.330 | --- ### D4: Stewardship & Accountability #### What TalentVerse surfaces TalentVerse draws on three primary sources for this dimension: Profit.co ePCG, Copilot ePCG, and PCG Forms. The Profit.co ePCG provides a competency rating trace across the cycle, showing where Marcus's accountability scores shifted and which sub-competencies were flagged by his reporting line. The Copilot ePCG layers in qualitative signal, surfacing written commentary from supervisors and peers that describes specific situations where stewardship was demonstrated or tested. The PCG Forms contribute structured accountability commitments Marcus made at the start of the cycle, enabling TalentVerse to compare what was committed against what was evidenced in the accompanying RMRR Report. The RMRR Report and MT Journal serve as supporting context. Note that the MT Journal has no sample available for Marcus in this cycle, so RMRR entries are the primary narrative anchor for the supporting layer. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** I became aware of a stewardship tension partway through the cycle when our flagship Leadership Foundations programme was being considered for a significant redesign. There was momentum inside the team to modernise the format, and there were valid reasons to do so. At the same time, I noticed that the proposed changes would shift the programme away from the experiential learning spine that has always differentiated it in the market. I recognised this as a values tension, not simply a design question. The Copilot ePCG commentary surfaced during my mid-year check flagged a pattern that I had partially seen myself: I had approved early concept work without sufficiently anchoring the team in the programme's purpose constraints. That signal made the tension concrete. I took it seriously as an accountability gap, not as a blame point for the team. **Align** My response was to call a deliberate pause on the redesign before it moved into full development. That decision created friction. Two programme leads had invested considerable time in the new concept, and pausing felt like a setback to them. I chose to hold the pause anyway because TPC's mandate for the Institute is to develop leaders for long-term service, not to produce content that is merely contemporary. I went back to the Profit.co ePCG documentation from the previous cycle and reviewed the stewardship commitments I had carried forward. I found that I had committed to protect the experiential core of our programmes during any major revision, and the proposed redesign, as scoped, would have breached that commitment. Naming that clearly to my team was harder than pausing the work. It required me to be accountable for the gap before asking the team to realign. **Collaborate** I worked closely with our Programme Quality lead and with the Institute's external advisory partner to establish a clearer set of design guardrails for the revision. Rather than simply reimposing the original constraints from the top, I asked the team to stress-test the guardrails themselves. We ran two structured review sessions where programme leads examined the redesign concepts against the guardrails and identified where the proposals held and where they did not. This collaborative accountability process surfaced a revised concept that retained the modernised elements while restoring the experiential core. The PCG Forms provided a shared reference point during those sessions: the written accountability commitments I had made were visible to everyone, which made the conversation more grounded. I also engaged the RMRR reviewer during this period to ensure that what we were doing would meet the Institute's reporting standards for programme integrity. **Co-create** The outcome was a revised design brief that the whole team can stand behind. More importantly, the process itself created a shared vocabulary for design stewardship inside the team that did not exist before. Programme leads now have a set of guardrails they helped write, which means they hold those standards themselves rather than waiting for me to enforce them. The RMRR Report for Q3 captured this as a governance improvement and referenced the revised brief as a credible artefact. I regard that as the more lasting contribution of this stewardship work: not the brief, but the team's changed relationship to accountability in programme design. --- **Assessment Rating — D4: Stewardship and Accountability** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Primary sources active | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 10% | | Weighted contribution | 0.340 | --- ### D5: Innovation & Entrepreneurship #### What TalentVerse surfaces For this dimension, TalentVerse draws on three proposed primary sources: Impact Week App (integration pending), iLevel (integration pending), and OCTAVE App (integration pending). Once live, the Impact Week App will surface participation records and idea submissions connected to Marcus's Innovation Sprint engagement, including the ideas he sponsored and the ones he personally originated. iLevel will provide a structured evidence trail of leadership innovation artefacts, including programme pilots, new market positioning documents, and prototypes submitted for assessment. The OCTAVE App will contribute event-level data on sessions Marcus ran, attended, or co-designed that carried an innovation or entrepreneurship signal. In the current cycle, TalentVerse relies on the supporting sources: the RMRR Report, which includes a section on programme innovation outcomes, and the MT Journal, which has no sample available for Marcus. CRM data via Affinity or YeeFlow (integration pending) would add partnership and outreach signals once live. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** I noticed the gap when I reviewed participant exit feedback from three consecutive Leadership Foundations cohorts and found the same signal repeated: participants valued the content but felt the learning design was insufficiently connected to their live operational contexts. That was not simply a facilitation note. It pointed to a structural gap between what we were building and what leaders in the field actually needed. I also saw a broader market signal during this period: peer institutes regionally were beginning to offer context-embedded, organisation-specific leadership tracks rather than open cohort programmes. I brought these two signals together in a MT Journal entry, which I revisited during my mid-year review. The picture was clear. The Institute's current programme model was optimised for breadth. The emerging need was for depth within context. **Align** I did not want innovation for its own sake. The Institute's strategic mandate is to build leadership capability in service of TPC's long-term mission, and I was determined that any new model we developed would serve that mandate, not substitute novelty for rigour. I drafted an Innovation Intent brief that mapped the participant feedback, the market signal, and TPC's stated strategic priorities for leadership development onto a single-page framing. That brief became my alignment anchor throughout the initiative. When ideas emerged from the team that were exciting but drifted from the mandate, I used the brief to redirect rather than reject. The RMRR Report from Q2 captured the brief as a strategic planning artefact, which helped anchor it across reporting lines. **Collaborate** I deliberately widened the creative circle early. I invited two programme leads to join me in a series of co-design sessions with three of our partner organisations, asking them to bring their own read of the gap, not just to support mine. I also brought in an external learning designer who had built context-embedded programmes for a regional development bank, as a creative friction partner rather than a consultant to be directed. The OCTAVE events data from this period will eventually reflect these co-design sessions once the OCTAVE App is live. In the present cycle, the RMRR Report references two partner co-design sessions as inputs to the pilot brief. The openness of that process mattered. I made a deliberate choice not to arrive with a finished concept, because I wanted the team and our partners to have genuine authorship over the direction. **Co-create** We launched a pilot of the Contextualised Leadership Track with one partner organisation across two cohorts in Q4. The pilot is a twelve-week embedded programme where leadership development work is structured around the organisation's live strategic challenges. Participants lead real cross-functional working groups as the primary learning vehicle. Early indicators are strong: the partner organisation has already expressed interest in a second cohort, and two other partner organisations have asked to be considered for the next pilot round. The iLevel platform, once live, will carry the formal artefact record for this pilot. For now, the RMRR Report for Q4 documents the launch and the early outcomes. The more lasting contribution is the new programme architecture itself. It represents a shift in the Institute's positioning from a content provider to a development partner, and that shift is something the whole team built together. --- **Assessment Rating — D5: Innovation and Entrepreneurship** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Supporting sources only | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 10% | | Weighted contribution | 0.330 | --- ### M1: Manage with Integrity (管以真) #### What TalentVerse surfaces For M1, TalentVerse draws primarily on the Management Dashboard (integration pending), the 360 Feedback Survey, and Profit.co OKR. The 360 Feedback Survey contributes peer and direct report ratings on integrity-adjacent behaviours, including consistency between stated commitments and observed actions, and the degree to which Marcus holds his team and himself to the same standards. Profit.co OKR provides a completion and accountability trail for team-level objectives, showing where Marcus's team delivered on commitments and where targets were revised or missed, along with any commentary Marcus added at the checkpoint stage. The Management Dashboard, once live, will provide a consolidated view of team accountability metrics, including OKR health by direct report and any escalation flags Marcus raised during the cycle. PCG Forms and Copilot ePCG serve as supporting context, anchoring the review-cycle commitments Marcus made as a manager. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** I became aware of an integrity signal midway through the cycle when I noticed a pattern in how one of my programme leads was handling project timelines. She was consistently submitting Profit.co OKR updates that showed green status, yet when I reviewed the underlying work in our shared planning space, I could see that delivery was tracking behind. The gap between what was being reported and what was actually happening was not fabrication. It was a form of optimism bias that I recognised, because I have held it myself in earlier career stages. What made it an integrity issue for me as a manager was that I had not created a safe enough environment for her to report accurately. The 360 Feedback Survey results from this period included an item from another team member noting that the team sometimes prioritised upward optics over honest status reporting. That signal confirmed what I had already started to suspect. **Align** My commitment at the start of this cycle, documented in the PCG Forms, was to lead a team culture where we report with accuracy, not with aspiration. That commitment was being tested. I made the decision to raise the pattern directly with the programme lead in our next 1-on-1, naming what I had observed without framing it as a performance issue. My intent was to restore alignment between what we commit to and what we report, and to model that I could hold that conversation with care rather than judgement. I also revised our team OKR review cadence: instead of asking each lead to report status independently, I shifted to a brief collective review where we look at the work together before anyone submits an update. That structural change reflected my accountability to TPC's values around transparency, not just my individual preference for rigour. **Collaborate** I involved the team directly in designing the revised OKR review cadence. Rather than announcing the change, I brought the pattern I had observed to the whole team in aggregate, without attributing it to any individual, and asked them whether our current reporting process was giving us accurate information. The conversation that followed was honest and at times uncomfortable. Two team members said they had felt pressure to report positively because earlier check-ins had gone poorly when they had flagged risks. That was hard to hear, but it was exactly the kind of signal I needed. Together we drafted a revised team norm: status updates would include a mandatory risk flag field, and no update would be treated as negative for raising a concern. The team helped write that norm, which meant they held it, not just me. **Co-create** By the end of the cycle, the accuracy of our Profit.co OKR reporting had improved measurably. More importantly, the team's willingness to surface risks early had changed. In our Q4 retrospective, three programme leads proactively flagged potential delivery risks for the following cycle, something that would not have happened before. The 360 Feedback results at year-end showed improved scores on integrity-adjacent items across Marcus's direct reports. The Management Dashboard, once live, will provide a more rigorous baseline for this kind of comparison. What I value most about this outcome is that the team's accountability culture became self-reinforcing. I did not have to enforce it. They owned it. --- **Assessment Rating — M1: Manage with Integrity** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Primary sources active | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 15% | | Weighted contribution | 0.510 | --- ### M2: Manage through Coaching (管以慈) #### What TalentVerse surfaces TalentVerse draws primarily on the 21 1-on-1 Check-in Note files available for Marcus, along with the Coaching Report (integration pending) and LMS (integration pending). The check-in notes provide the densest signal for this dimension: TalentVerse processes the note content to identify recurring themes in the questions Marcus asks, the growth edges he names for specific team members, and the frequency and quality of follow-up across sessions. The Coaching Report, once live, will add a structured coaching outcome record generated by Marcus's certified coach, including goal progress and coaching conversation summaries. The LMS will contribute a view of learning activity Marcus has directed or recommended for his direct reports, enabling TalentVerse to link coaching conversations to development action. Form D upward feedback and MS Teams Transcription (integration pending) serve as supporting sources, with transcription data eventually providing a more granular read on Marcus's coaching register in real-time conversations. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** I noticed a growth edge in one of my programme leads, David, across several consecutive check-in sessions. David is technically excellent and highly regarded by participants. The pattern I observed was that he struggled to delegate facilitation responsibilities to junior facilitators, even as his own programme portfolio grew. In the check-in notes from Q1 and Q2, there is a recurring theme: David would describe being stretched thin, then in the same breath explain why he preferred to handle the facilitation himself. I did not name this as a delegation problem immediately. I wanted to understand what was underneath it. By our Q2 mid-year session, the signal was clear enough that I raised it directly. The check-in notes from that session record the question I asked: "What would need to be true for you to trust someone else in the room?" That question opened a much more substantive conversation than the timeline pressure had. **Align** My coaching goal for David was not simply to free up his schedule. The Institute needs its senior programme leads to develop the next generation of facilitators, and that is a strategic need, not just a personal development aspiration. I was deliberate about connecting those two things in our conversations. I did not want David to delegate because I had asked him to. I wanted him to delegate because he understood that his growth edge here was also a contribution to the Institute's bench strength. I aligned my coaching approach to that framing by shifting our 1-on-1 agenda for Q3 to spend more time on facilitation development as a leadership practice, rather than on his own facilitation delivery. That was a conscious choice to redirect our conversation time toward a longer-term outcome, even when short-term delivery pressures were pulling in the other direction. **Collaborate** I changed my 1-on-1 structure with David in Q3 to create more space for him to lead the conversation. In previous cycles, I had held the agenda more tightly, which I recognised was limiting his ownership of his own development. I asked David to arrive at each session with one question he wanted to think through, and I would arrive with one observation I wanted to share. That shift was small in structure but significant in dynamic. I also connected David with a senior facilitator from a partner organisation who had built a strong facilitation development system in her team. That introduction was not a directive. It was an invitation for David to see what was possible from a peer rather than from me. The check-in notes from Q3 onwards reflect a different quality of conversation: David was naming his own growth edges before I surfaced them. **Co-create** By the end of Q4, David had run a structured facilitation development programme for two junior facilitators, with both completing their first solo facilitation sessions under his supervision. That outcome did not exist at the start of the cycle. More than the programme itself, what changed was David's sense of himself as a developer of others. He described it explicitly in our year-end check-in: "I realise this is part of my job now." The LMS, once live, will capture the formal development activity records. The Coaching Report, once live, will reflect the coaching goal progress. For now, the check-in notes provide the evidence trail for the shift. What Marcus built with David this cycle is not just a capability in one team member. It is a precedent for how the Institute develops its facilitation pipeline. --- **Assessment Rating — M2: Manage through Coaching** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Supporting sources only | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 15% | | Weighted contribution | 0.435 | --- ### M3: Manage with Connection (管以和) #### What TalentVerse surfaces TalentVerse draws primarily on the 360 Feedback Survey, Form D upward feedback, and MS Viva Insights (integration pending) for this dimension. The 360 Feedback Survey includes items from Marcus's direct reports that speak to relational quality: whether they feel seen as individuals, whether they experience psychological safety to raise concerns, and whether Marcus's leadership style builds cohesion or creates distance. Form D upward feedback provides an additional structured channel for direct reports to speak to Marcus's relational practice, separate from the 360 process and closer to the review cycle close. MS Viva Insights, once live, will add collaboration pattern data: meeting frequency, response time distributions, and cross-team communication networks that indicate how connected Marcus's team members are with each other and with him. The 21 1-on-1 Check-in Note files serve as a supporting source, providing qualitative texture for the relational patterns the survey data surfaces. #### Marcus's AACC narrative **Aware** I noticed a relational signal in early Q2 that I did not immediately know how to name. One of my team members, a programme associate who had joined the Institute eight months prior, had become noticeably quieter in team sessions. She was still delivering her work, and her check-in conversations with me were cordial. But her presence in team discussions had contracted, and I had not seen her initiate a conversation with a peer outside of structured meetings in several weeks. I raised it gently in our 1-on-1, framing it as something I had noticed rather than a concern about her performance. She told me that she felt the team's informal social fabric had been disrupted by the hybrid work pattern we had adopted earlier in the year, and that she did not know how to rebuild connection across a distributed team at her level of seniority. That was a more precise diagnosis than I had. It pointed to something structural, not just interpersonal. **Align** I took her observation seriously because it aligned with something I had been holding for some time but had not acted on. TPC's values include a genuine commitment to the well-being of each person, not merely to team output. My reflection in the MT Journal from that period shows that I had been prioritising delivery momentum over relational investment, and that the team's hybrid transition had created a gap I had not adequately bridged. My response was shaped by a commitment I carry as a leader: connection is not a culture add-on. It is the medium through which the work gets done well. I committed to making relational investment a deliberate and visible part of my management practice, not just a warm aspiration I held privately. **Collaborate** I worked with the programme associate and one other team member to redesign the team's fortnightly huddle format. The previous format was primarily operational: status updates, flagging blockers, coordinating logistics. The new format opens with a ten-minute unstructured conversation segment and closes with a brief moment where one team member shares something they are finding meaningful in their work. Those two structural changes were proposed by team members, not by me. I provided the space and the permission. I also introduced a quarterly team half-day that has no operational agenda: it is purely a shared learning and connection experience. The first half-day was a facilitation skills exchange where each team member taught something they knew to the rest of the group. The 360 Feedback results from Q3 onwards show improved scores on items relating to team psychological safety and peer connection. **Co-create** By year-end, the team's relational quality had shifted in ways I could see and that the Form D upward feedback confirmed. Three direct reports independently noted in their upward feedback that the team felt more cohesive than it had twelve months prior. The programme associate who had raised the issue in Q2 described feeling genuinely embedded in the team by year-end, which she specifically connected to the redesigned huddle format. MS Viva Insights, once live, will provide a quantified baseline for collaboration network health across the team. For now, the qualitative signal from the check-in notes and upward feedback is the most credible evidence available. What Marcus and the team built this cycle is not just a better meeting format. It is a shared understanding that connection is something they actively tend together. --- **Assessment Rating — M3: Manage with Connection** *Shown here in post-release state. Before calibration window closes, this block displays: "Rating pending calibration."* | Item | Value | |---|---| | Evidence level | Primary sources active | | Rating | Strong Impact | | Tier 1 weight | 10% | | Weighted contribution | 0.320 | --- **Track A Composite Score — Marcus Tan** | Dimension | Rating | Score | Weight | Contribution | |---|---|---|---|---| | D1 Delivering Results and Impact | Transformative Impact | 3.6 | 20% | 0.720 | | D2 Learning and Self-Cultivation | Strong Impact | 3.2 | 10% | 0.320 | | D3 Collaboration and Partnership | Strong Impact | 3.3 | 10% | 0.330 | | D4 Stewardship and Accountability | Strong Impact | 3.4 | 10% | 0.340 | | D5 Innovation and Entrepreneurship | Strong Impact | 3.3 | 10% | 0.330 | | M1 Manage with Integrity | Strong Impact | 3.4 | 15% | 0.510 | | M2 Manage through Coaching | Strong Impact | 2.9 | 15% | 0.435 | | M3 Manage with Connection | Strong Impact | 3.2 | 10% | 0.320 | | **Composite** | **Strong Impact** | **3.305** | **100%** | **3.305** | *Track A is scored. This composite informs calibration and the moderation panel.* --- ## Section 2: Form B: Growth and Dialogue (Employee IRTF Reflection) > **Data firewall.** The content of Form B is visible to Marcus and his reporting manager only. It does not enter the calibration panel, and it is not available to reviewers assessing Marcus's performance standing. TalentVerse surfaces growth signals from coaching records, check-in notes, 360 patterns, and wellbeing data to support the IRTF cycle, which Marcus engages with throughout the year. The employee uses IRTF to make sense of those signals and commit to what comes next. This content is firewalled not because it is less important than the performance track, but because honest growth requires a protected space. A reflection written to be evaluated is not a reflection. --- ### In-Search: G1: Self-Cultivation (修身, Xiushen) #### Growth signals TalentVerse surfaces For the In-Search step, TalentVerse draws on the 360 Feedback Survey, MS Viva Insights (integration pending), the Coaching Report (integration pending), OCTAVE Events data, and the 21 check-in note files available for Marcus. The 360 pattern shows a consistent thread across rater groups: peers and direct reports both note that Marcus's instinct is to model or demonstrate before creating space for others to attempt. This appears in the M2 dimension ratings and in free-text comments referencing "shows us rather than asking us." MS Viva Insights, once integrated, is expected to surface collaboration rhythm data showing where Marcus's meeting contribution time significantly outpaces his listening time. The coaching records, flagged as integration pending, are anticipated to carry coach notations from the past two quarters on the same tension. OCTAVE Events data shows that Marcus consistently delivers the synthesis or resolution moment in group learning sessions, with few events recording participant-led resolution in his presence. #### Marcus's IRTF reflection I noticed the signal first in a team review session in Q3, not in the data. We were working through a design problem that the team had been holding for two weeks. I came in with a framing I had developed the night before, and within fifteen minutes the conversation had reorganised around my frame. The work moved faster. But two days later, one of my team leads came back and said she had had a different idea forming and had let it go. That moment stayed with me. The 360 comments did not surprise me once I saw them, because I had felt the pattern without naming it. I have spent twenty years learning how to solve hard problems quickly, and I know how to do it in a learning institute context specifically. The efficiency of stepping in is real. But so is the cost, and I had been counting the efficiency without counting the cost. What the OCTAVE Events data surfaced was the absence of something: participant-led resolution rarely appears when I am in the room. That is not a coincidence. The question I am sitting with is whether my presence is raising the floor for others or lowering their ceiling. --- **Track B Insight: G1: Self-Cultivation (修身)** | Signal | Reading | |---|---| | Pattern observed | Multiple sources converge on a single growth signal: your presence in group problem-solving sessions tends to reorganise the room around your frame before others have finished forming their own thinking. | | Data sources active | 360 Feedback Survey (existing), OCTAVE Events JSON (existing), 1-on-1 Check-in Notes (existing), MS Viva Insights (integration pending), Coaching Report (integration pending) | | Development framing | This step surfaces the difference between raising the floor for others and limiting the ceiling for their independent thinking. | | IRTF step | In-Search | *Track B is not scored. These insights surface to Marcus and his manager for dialogue, not calibration.* --- ### Research: G2: Roles and Relationships (齐家, Qijia) #### Growth signals TalentVerse surfaces For the Research step, TalentVerse draws on the SHL OPQ32 and SHL MQ M5 psychometric reports (integration pending, available to senior leaders only), MLP/MEP Reflections (integration pending), the Coaching Report (integration pending), and the Job Profile as a competency reference. The SHL OPQ32 is expected to surface Marcus's profile on directive and coaching leadership styles, specifically the tension between high scores on "data rational" and "independent minded" and the implications for delegating cognitive authority. The MLP/MEP Reflections are expected to contain structured responses from two prior leadership programmes that speak to Marcus's stated development intentions around developmental facilitation. The Coaching Report is expected to document six months of coaching conversations, at least four of which are anticipated to carry session notes on the theme of holding back and its difficulty for Marcus. The Job Profile at Deputy Executive Director level specifies capability building through others as a core mandate, which sits in direct tension with the pattern surfaced in In-Search. #### Marcus's IRTF reflection The psychometrics, when I read the SHL OPQ32 report, were not comfortable reading. My profile shows very high scores on "independent minded" and "data rational," which the report frames as a strength in decision environments. But the report also flags a watch-out that I had skimmed past in a previous reading: leaders with this profile tend to anchor group thinking to their own framing early in a process, often without being aware of it. That is not a neutral observation. It is a description of what happened in that Q3 session. The coaching session notes, which I have been reading more carefully this cycle, show that my coach flagged this in session four and again in session six. I noted it both times and then characterised it as situational. The MLP reflection from two years ago is even more direct: I wrote that I want to create conditions for others to build their own expertise, and I cited that as an aspiration I was working toward. What the research step has shown me is that the gap between that stated aspiration and my actual pattern in the room is wider than I had been prepared to admit. I was researching a growth edge I had already formally identified two years ago and still had not moved on. --- **Track B Insight: G2: Roles and Relationships (齐家)** | Signal | Reading | |---|---| | Pattern observed | Psychometric data, coaching session notes, and a prior leadership reflection all carry the same growth signal: a formally named aspiration to build capability through others has not yet translated into a consistent shift in how you occupy group problem-solving space. | | Data sources active | SHL OPQ32 (integration pending), Coaching Report (integration pending), MLP/MEP Reflections (integration pending), Job Profile (existing) | | Development framing | This step establishes that the growth edge has roots across relationships and roles, making it available as a focus for deliberate practice rather than situational management. | | IRTF step | Research | *Track B is not scored. These insights surface to Marcus and his manager for dialogue, not calibration.* --- ### Think-Through: G3: Stewardship (治国, Zhiguo) #### Growth signals TalentVerse surfaces For the Think-Through step, TalentVerse draws on the 21 check-in note files, the MT Journal (no sample available for Marcus this cycle), MLP/MEP Reflections (integration pending), the RMRR Report, and the SHL psychometrics (integration pending). The check-in notes from the current cycle contain twelve distinct references across eight sessions to Marcus's engagement with his team's development, including four notations where Marcus and his manager discussed the coaching versus demonstrating tension directly. The RMRR Report provides the performance context: Marcus's results record is strong, and the value he personally generates is documented and real. This creates a specific accountability challenge. The cost of his pattern is not visible in his output data. It is visible only in the developmental trajectories of the people around him, which are slower and less independent than they could be. #### Marcus's IRTF reflection The hardest part of Think-Through is that the results are fine. My OKR delivery is solid. The programmes I lead are high-quality. The RMRR entries are positive. I cannot point to a failure that forced this reckoning, which means I have to choose it without a crisis as the reason. What I now understand is that I have been running two conflicting mandates and only accounting for one of them. My job is to deliver results and to build capability in others. I have been delivering results, in part, by substituting my capability for theirs. That is not neutral stewardship. It has a compounding cost: each time I resolve the hard moment, I take one iteration of struggle away from someone who needed that struggle to grow. I have been doing this with care, and with genuine investment in my team's development, which is part of why it has been hard to see. Care does not make a pattern harmless. What I own, specifically, is this: I have let my comfort with complexity become a reason to act instead of a reason to wait. I am faster at solving problems than most people in the room, and I have been using that speed to protect the work when I should have been using it to protect the people's process. I have also been telling myself that I would step back when the stakes were lower. The stakes are never lower enough. I have been slow to acknowledge that this is a habit, not a situational response. --- **Track B Insight: G3: Stewardship (治国)** | Signal | Reading | |---|---| | Pattern observed | Check-in notes and performance records together surface a specific stewardship tension: the output record is solid, and the cost of the pattern sits not in delivery data but in the developmental trajectories of the people the leadership touches. | | Data sources active | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes (existing), RMRR Report (existing), SHL Psychometrics (integration pending), MLP/MEP Reflections (integration pending) | | Development framing | This step makes available a more complete accounting of stewardship: what you deliver and what you make possible in others are both part of the mandate at this level. | | IRTF step | Think-Through | *Track B is not scored. These insights surface to Marcus and his manager for dialogue, not calibration.* --- ### Follow-Through: G4: Consciousness (平天下 · 天人合一) #### Growth signals TalentVerse surfaces For the Follow-Through step, TalentVerse draws on LMS completion records (integration pending), the Coaching Report (integration pending), OCTAVE App participation data (integration pending), the Management Dashboard (integration pending), and the 1-on-1 check-in notes as the primary existing tracking mechanism. The coaching record is expected to serve as the primary accountability surface for the commitments Marcus names here, with quarterly session notes documenting whether practice changes are holding. The OCTAVE App, once integrated, is expected to track whether participant-led resolution rates in Marcus's sessions increase over the next cycle. The check-in notes will continue to be the existing data trail for his manager to surface progress or regression against the stated commitments. LMS data is expected to confirm whether Marcus has engaged with the facilitative leadership modules identified in his development plan. #### Marcus's IRTF reflection The commitment I am making is specific and behavioural. In facilitated group sessions where my team is working through a design or strategy problem, I will not offer my framing in the first thirty minutes. That is a hard rule, not a guideline. If I feel the pull to intervene, I will ask a question instead, and I will name the question explicitly in my coaching notes afterward so my coach can track whether it is a genuine inquiry or a redirect in disguise. With my team leads specifically, I am committing to a monthly one-to-one session structure where the agenda is theirs to set, and where my role is to reflect back what I am hearing rather than to solve or frame. I recognise that this will feel slower, and that there will be sessions where the work suffers in the short term because I held back. I am accepting that cost as the real investment in their development. The second commitment is to bring this pattern explicitly into my next coaching cycle as the primary developmental focus, not a side note. It has been a side note for two years. Because of this commitment, I will be Aware differently in the next cycle. When I enter a room where my team is working through something hard, my first perception will be a question rather than an answer: who in this room has something forming that my presence has not yet crowded out? --- **Track B Insight: G4: Consciousness (平天下 · 天人合一)** | Signal | Reading | |---|---| | Pattern observed | The commitment named in this step is specific and behavioural, and it is grounded in a perceptual shift: arriving in contribution moments with a question rather than a frame. | | Data sources active | 1-on-1 Check-in Notes (existing), Coaching Report (integration pending), LMS (integration pending), OCTAVE App (integration pending), Management Dashboard (integration pending) | | Development framing | This step closes the current IRTF cycle and opens the next one: what you commit to here becomes the lens through which you enter the next contribution moment, making the next Aware step richer. | | IRTF step | Follow-Through | *Track B is not scored. These insights surface to Marcus and his manager for dialogue, not calibration.* --- > Follow-Through is not the end of the IRTF cycle. It is the point where the cycle becomes visible in Marcus's behaviour, and where the next cycle begins to load. The commitment Marcus has named here, specifically the discipline of arriving with a question rather than a frame, will change the lens through which he perceives the next collaboration moment. Reflection is only complete when it changes how a person contributes. Until the commitment is visible in the room, it is intention. The next AACC cycle will be the test. --- ## Section 3: Form C — Peer Perspectives > Form C collects dimension-tagged observations from a nominated set of peers. The process takes approximately five minutes per respondent. Peers select which dimensions they have direct, observable evidence for and write a short narrative for each selected dimension. Responses are anonymous to the calibration panel. TalentVerse aggregates the responses thematically before surfacing them to the employee and to the reviewing manager as part of the Performance and Impact evidence dashboard. Peers do not rate; they observe. Their input enriches the manager's view of D3 (Collaboration and Partnership) most directly, but peers may tag any dimension they have meaningful first-hand observation of. Direct reports provide upward feedback separately through Form D and are not included in this peer pool. --- ### Respondent 1: Dr. Priya Sundaram **Role and relationship:** Head of Talent, TPC Group. Cross-functional peer who works with Marcus on enterprise-wide talent programmes, with no direct reporting relationship. **Dimensions tagged:** D2, D3, D5 **D2 — Learning and Self-Cultivation** In my experience working with Marcus across several enterprise talent initiatives this cycle, what stands out on D2 is not the volume of learning he pursues but the deliberateness of it. He does not attend every programme or claim every credential. What I notice is that he tends to identify a specific conceptual gap, pursue it with some depth, and then bring it back into the work in a way that is visible to people around him. Earlier this year he raised a framing from complexity leadership theory that he had clearly been sitting with for a while, and it shifted the direction of a design conversation we were having. The nuance I would add is that this deliberateness can sometimes slow the loop. There are moments where I have seen Marcus hold back from sharing a developing thought until he feels it is fully formed, and by then the window for the conversation has narrowed. The learning is real, but the sharing of it in-progress is still an edge. **D3 — Collaboration and Partnership** What I notice across this cycle is that Marcus is genuinely easy to work with at the enterprise level. He comes into joint work already having thought about what the other party needs, which means we spend less time on alignment and more time on the actual work. On the talent programme redesign we ran together in Q2, he proactively flagged a resourcing constraint on our side before I had even raised it, and that kind of anticipatory partnership is not common. The thing that still has some room to grow, in my observation, is how he holds the boundary between the Learning Institute's priorities and the enterprise agenda when they pull in different directions. Most of the time he navigates it well, but there have been moments this cycle where I sensed he was absorbing tension rather than surfacing it, which can erode the quality of the collaboration over time if it becomes a pattern. **D5 — Innovation and Entrepreneurship** The thing that stands out to me on this dimension is how Marcus thinks about programme positioning. He does not treat learning design as a service delivery function. He approaches it more like a product question: who is the audience, what shift do we want to produce, and is our current approach the best way to produce it. That orientation has pushed some of our joint work in useful directions this cycle. Where I see the growth edge is in the translation from concept to commitment. Marcus generates strong ideas, and he is willing to pilot them in a contained way, but there are a few moments this cycle where an idea that had strong internal traction stalled at the point of external resourcing or stakeholder sign-off. I do not think that is a failure of vision. I think it is a capability gap in building the commercial case that matches the strength of the conceptual case. --- ### Respondent 2: James Loh **Role and relationship:** Head of Strategic Partnerships. Collaborates with Marcus on external stakeholder relationships and programme sponsorships. **Dimensions tagged:** D1, D3, D4 **D1 — Delivering Results and Impact** In my experience working alongside Marcus on external partnerships this cycle, he delivers on what he commits to. When we co-led the engagement with the industry consortium in Q3, he managed the Learning Institute's deliverable thread with minimal hand-holding and surfaced issues early enough that we could course-correct before they became visible to the external party. That kind of reliable delivery in a high-visibility, multi-stakeholder context is genuinely valuable. The nuance I would offer is that Marcus's definition of a completed deliverable is sometimes set at a higher standard than the context strictly requires, which can create internal friction when the team around him is working at a different pace. It is not a problem of output quality. It is a question of calibration between what excellence looks like internally and what "done" means for the external relationship. **D3 — Collaboration and Partnership** What I notice across this cycle is that Marcus builds genuine relationships with external partners, not transactional ones. He remembers context from previous conversations, follows up on things that were mentioned in passing, and brings a quality of attention to the relationship that partners respond to. In the consortium work, two senior counterparts from partner organisations specifically referenced Marcus by name in their closing reflections, which is uncommon. Where I see a tension is in how he manages the handoff between the relationship layer and the execution layer. Marcus is strong at initiating and deepening partnerships. The transition to a more operational mode, where someone else on the team is the primary contact, does not always happen cleanly. Part of that is a trust and delegation question, and it is worth watching as the portfolio of external relationships grows. **D4 — Stewardship and Accountability** The thing that stands out to me on this dimension, from my vantage point, is that Marcus holds himself to a clear standard of accountability. When a partnership deliverable slipped earlier in the cycle due to a resourcing issue on the Learning Institute's side, he surfaced it to me directly and owned it clearly rather than framing it as a systemic issue. That kind of clean accountability in a peer relationship builds trust quickly. What I observe less clearly from my position is how consistently that standard translates into how he holds his team accountable. I cannot assess that directly, but when things have moved slowly on the joint work, the pattern I notice is that Marcus tends to absorb the gap himself rather than redistributing it, which can mask where the real bottleneck is. --- ### Respondent 3: Rachel Yeo **Role and relationship:** Senior Programme Lead, Learning Institute. Direct team colleague at the same Institute, collaborating closely with Marcus on programme delivery. **Dimensions tagged:** D3, D4, M2, M3 **D3 — Collaboration and Partnership** Working as closely with Marcus as I do, I have a granular view of how he operates as a collaborator rather than a distant one. What I can say with confidence is that he is one of the most actively present senior leaders I have worked with. He does not just sign off on joint work. He is in the room, he is in the details when it matters, and he creates space for the people around him to contribute with real ownership. What I would also say, honestly, is that this same quality can create a dynamic where it is harder for others to lead. There have been moments this cycle where I wanted to drive a design decision and the pull of Marcus's perspective was strong enough that the room defaulted to him even when he was not intending to close the conversation. That is a collaboration strength that carries a shadow. **D4 — Stewardship and Accountability** What I notice across this cycle is that Marcus is meticulous about the standards we hold for our programmes. He does not let things ship at 80 percent when 90 is achievable. For the flagship leadership programme we ran in Q1, his insistence on revising the facilitation design two weeks out produced a noticeably better result, and the participant feedback reflected that. The growth edge I observe is around documentation and process. Marcus holds a lot of the programme's institutional knowledge in his head, and there are moments where the team's ability to operate independently is constrained because the standards and rationale are not written down. From a stewardship standpoint, that is a risk over the medium term, not just for the team but for the programmes themselves. **M2 — Manage through Coaching** In my direct experience of being managed by Marcus over this cycle, his coaching orientation is real and not performative. He asks questions rather than giving answers the large majority of the time, and when he does give an answer it tends to feel like an invitation to push back. Earlier this cycle I was navigating a difficult facilitation challenge and he walked me through it by asking me what I already knew about the situation, which forced me to surface my own frame before defaulting to his. That process was genuinely useful. Where I notice a gap is in the regularity of the coaching check-ins when things get busy. The quality is high when they happen, but the cadence dips under programme pressure, and those are often the moments when the coaching would be most valuable. **M3 — Manage with Connection** The thing that stands out to me on M3 is that Marcus knows us as people, not just as programme contributors. He remembers what is happening in our lives, notices when someone on the team is quieter than usual, and creates moments for connection that are not agenda-driven. That foundation of genuine care makes it easier to raise difficult things with him. The nuance I would name is that this quality is not evenly distributed across the team at all times. When Marcus is under pressure, his attention narrows to the work, and the relational warmth that is usually present can become harder to access. That is understandable. It is also worth naming because the team members who need that connection most are often the ones who feel the withdrawal most acutely. --- > TalentVerse aggregates peer responses from Form C through a thematic synthesis process before surfacing them to the employee and the reviewing manager. Individual responses are not attributable in the dashboard view. Where three or more respondents tag the same dimension, TalentVerse synthesises the observations into a thematic signal that reflects convergence, divergence, and any outlier patterns. Where fewer than two respondents tag a dimension, the signal is suppressed from the aggregated view to protect anonymity, and the manager is notified that peer data for that dimension is below the threshold. The dashboard surfaces the synthesised narrative per dimension, not verbatim quotes, and flags the number of peer observations that contributed to each theme. Respondent identities are not disclosed to the calibration panel at any stage. --- ## Section 4: Form D — Upward Feedback > Form D collects upward feedback from Marcus's direct reports, focused on three people manager dimensions: M1 (Manage with Integrity), M2 (Manage through Coaching), and M3 (Manage with Connection). The two-level rule applies: individual responses are not visible to Marcus directly. Marcus's manager, Christopher Wee, sees only the aggregated synthesis, not individual responses. The purpose of Form D is to give Christopher a grounded, team-level view of how Marcus is experienced as a manager, separate from what Marcus self-reports in Form A. This input sits within the Performance and Impact track and feeds the evidence dashboard alongside peer observations from Form C and system-sourced data. Form D does not feed the Growth and Dialogue track. --- ### Respondent 1: Caleb Ong **Role and relationship:** Programme Lead at the Learning Institute. Has reported to Marcus for two full assessment cycles. **M1 — Manage with Integrity** In my experience reporting to Marcus across two cycles now, what stands out on this dimension is that he is consistent. The standards he holds for the work are the same standards he holds for himself, and that consistency makes it straightforward to understand what is expected. When there has been a difficult message to deliver to the team, whether about scope changes, programme decisions that did not land as hoped, or performance concerns, Marcus has delivered it directly and without dressing it up. I have never felt managed around. The place where I would name a nuance is in how information flows during periods of organisational uncertainty. There have been moments this cycle where I sensed Marcus was holding information he was not yet able to share, and while I understand that is sometimes the reality at his level, the silence was louder than he may have realised. A brief acknowledgement that things are in motion, even without the detail, would have carried a lot. **M2 — Manage through Coaching** What I notice across this cycle is that Marcus's coaching is strongest when there is time and space for it. He has a genuine capacity to ask the question that reframes the problem, and when we have had proper one-on-ones with breathing room, I have come out with a clearer sense of what I am actually trying to solve. The growth edge is that those conditions do not always exist. Under programme delivery pressure, the coaching mode compresses, and the interactions become more directive out of necessity. I understand why that happens, and I do not think it reflects a lack of investment in the coaching relationship. What I would name is that when the mode shifts, it shifts without signal, and that can be disorienting. A small acknowledgement of the shift, something like "I am going to give you my direct take on this one because we are against time," would help calibrate my expectations and maintain the quality of the exchange. **M3 — Manage with Connection** Marcus knows me as a person, and I have always felt that. He knows what I care about professionally, what I find energising, and what drains me. That knowledge shows up in how he assigns work and how he checks in. It is not a generic management posture. It is specific to me, and that specificity matters. The thing I would add is that this quality is most visible in one-on-one settings. In team settings, the relational warmth is present but operates at a lower frequency, and I have sometimes wondered whether other team members who are less vocal experience the connection as less consistent. I am not saying that to be critical. I raise it because Marcus clearly cares, and a small deliberate shift in how that care is expressed in group settings could strengthen the team's collective sense of being seen. --- ### Respondent 2: Nadia Ibrahim **Role and relationship:** Associate Programme Lead at the Learning Institute. In her first full assessment cycle reporting to Marcus. **M1 — Manage with Integrity** In my first full cycle with Marcus, what has struck me most about M1 is the clarity of his decision-making rationale. When he makes a call about a programme or a team matter, he explains the reasoning, and he does not change the reasoning after the fact. That clarity has been important for me as someone who was still learning how decisions get made at this level. There was one moment earlier in the cycle where a programme I had invested significant time in was paused due to a strategic reprioritisation. Marcus told me directly, explained what had shifted, and acknowledged the work that would not see the light of day. The way he handled it made a difficult message land without damage to the relationship or to my motivation. What I am still calibrating is how to interpret moments where the decision seems made before the consultation happens. There have been a few instances where I was asked for input and later felt the outcome had already been decided. I may be misreading the situation, and I want to be honest that I do not have enough cycles with Marcus to know whether that is a pattern or a feature of those specific decisions. **M2 — Manage through Coaching** As a newer team member, my experience of Marcus's coaching has been genuinely developmental. He does not tell me the answer and he does not make me feel that not knowing is a problem. In my onboarding period, he spent real time understanding how I learn, and then adapted how he worked with me in a way I appreciated. What I am finding as the cycle has progressed is that the coaching mode is available but not always initiatable from my side. There are times when I would benefit from a coaching conversation but am not sure how to signal that without it feeling like an interruption or an escalation. I think part of that is a readiness question on my part. But I also notice that Marcus's door-open posture is most visible when he initiates. Building a shared signal for when I need that kind of support, even a simple one, would help me make better use of what he clearly wants to offer. **M3 — Manage with Connection** What I notice on M3 across this cycle is that Marcus creates a team environment that feels safe to ask questions in. That has been directly relevant for me as someone in my first cycle. I have not once felt that raising a concern or admitting uncertainty was unwelcome. Some of that is team culture and some of it is tone set at the top. The nuance I would name is that I do not always feel fully visible as an individual within the team structure. Marcus has a strong relationship with Caleb, who has been here longer, and the depth of that existing relationship is sometimes visible in how certain conversations and decisions happen. That is natural. It is also something I am conscious of, particularly when I am trying to build my own standing within the team. I am raising it not as a complaint but because I think Marcus would want to know that the connection experience is not yet uniform across the team. --- > TalentVerse aggregates upward feedback from Form D using the same thematic synthesis approach applied to peer responses in Form C. Because the upward respondent pool is typically smaller, the anonymisation threshold is applied strictly: where fewer than two respondents provide observations on a dimension, the signal is suppressed from the dashboard view and the reviewing manager is notified. Where two or more respondents tag a dimension, TalentVerse synthesises the observations into a thematic signal that surfaces convergence and divergence without attributing either to an individual. The aggregated synthesis is available to Marcus's manager, Christopher Wee, as part of the Form E evidence dashboard. Marcus does not receive the raw or aggregated upward feedback directly. He receives a summary signal through his own Form A dashboard, which indicates that upward input has been collected and incorporated into the evidence base. --- ## Section 5: Form E — Manager Review > Form E is the reviewing manager's input into the Performance and Impact assessment. Before the joint conversation, the manager reviews the assembled evidence dashboard: Marcus's Form A narrative, the peer perspective synthesis from Form C, the upward feedback synthesis from Form D, and the system-surfaced data for each dimension. The manager does not see Form B content. Form B belongs to the Growth and Dialogue track and is protected by the data firewall. The manager scores each dimension after reading the evidence and conducting a 45 to 60 minute joint conversation with Marcus. Scores are not finalised during the evidence review. They are finalised only after the conversation, which may surface context the evidence alone does not capture. The manager's pre-review notes and post-conversation scores are both recorded in TalentVerse. **Reviewing manager:** Christopher Wee, Chief People Officer, TPC Group --- ### Pre-review notes (before joint conversation) **D1 — Delivering Results and Impact** What I observe in the evidence for D1 is a cycle where Marcus delivered on the core commitments and navigated a non-trivial set of constraints in doing so. The OKR data shows completion on the flagship programme deliverables, and the RMRR report reflects positive stakeholder outcomes in the consortium engagement. The area I want to explore in the conversation is the Q3 programme pause. From the evidence available, it is not fully clear whether the pause was a resourcing and prioritisation decision made with Marcus's input or one that landed on him as an external constraint. That distinction matters for how I score D1. If Marcus was actively managing the scope decision, that reflects strong delivery judgement. If he was absorbing a decision made above him, the question is whether he was positioned to influence it and chose not to, or whether that was genuinely outside his control. **D2 — Learning and Self-Cultivation** What I observe in the evidence for D2 is that the formal data sources for this dimension are mostly integration pending for Marcus's level of seniority, which limits what the system can show directly. The 1-on-1 check-in notes carry some signal: there are references to Marcus engaging with complexity leadership frameworks and bringing external thinking into design conversations. The peer synthesis from Form C adds texture, specifically the observation from Dr. Priya Sundaram that Marcus's learning is deliberate and eventually visible in the work, but that the in-progress sharing can be slow. That matches what I observe directionally. My question for the conversation is about intentionality: is Marcus actively cultivating a learning arc this cycle, or is the learning incidental to the work? For a senior leader at his level, the distinction matters for how the organisation develops its own learning leadership. **D3 — Collaboration and Partnership** The evidence for D3 is relatively rich compared to other dimensions, which is expected given the 360 Feedback Survey and OCTAVE Events data alongside the peer synthesis. The peer observations converge on a clear theme: Marcus is strong as a partnership initiator and relationship builder, and he is weaker on the handoff. Both James Loh and Dr. Sundaram, from different vantage points, have named a version of the same thing: the transition from Marcus as the relationship anchor to the team as the operational point of contact is not always clean. That is a D3 and an M2 question at the same time. I want to understand from Marcus how he sees that handoff and whether he has actively tried to address it this cycle or whether it is sitting as a known gap. **D4 — Stewardship and Accountability** What I observe in the evidence for D4 is a dimension where the system data is reasonably strong: the Copilot ePCG and PCG Forms both reflect clear accountability practices, and the peer observations confirm a pattern of personal ownership and clean escalation. The growth signal I am more focused on is the documentation and institutional knowledge point raised in Rachel Yeo's observation. If Marcus is the knowledge node for the Learning Institute's programme standards and the documentation is not keeping pace, that is a stewardship question for the organisation as well as for his team. I want to understand whether Marcus recognises this as a gap and what, if anything, he has done about it this cycle. **D5 — Innovation and Entrepreneurship** The evidence for D5 has some structural gaps: the primary sources for this dimension, Impact Week App, iLevel, and OCTAVE App, are all integration pending. The RMRR report provides some signal on programme positioning and design innovation, and the peer observations add texture. Dr. Sundaram's observation is the sharpest signal available: Marcus generates strong conceptual ideas and is willing to pilot them, but the translation from concept to external stakeholder commitment is a recurring stall point. I want to understand whether Marcus is aware of this gap and how he is thinking about it. At his level, the ability to build a commercial or organisational case that matches the quality of the conceptual work is not optional. It is part of the innovation capability. **M1 — Manage with Integrity** Across the cycle, the pattern I see for M1 in both the upward synthesis and the peer observations is strong. The upward synthesis reflects a team that experiences Marcus as consistent, clear in his decision-making rationale, and willing to deliver difficult messages directly. Caleb's observation about information flow during periods of uncertainty is the one signal I want to sit with. It is not a breach of integrity. It is a management communication question: how does Marcus signal to his team that things are in motion without disclosing information he cannot yet share? That is a skill at his level, and it is worth exploring whether Marcus has a deliberate approach to it or is managing it intuitively with variable results. **M2 — Manage through Coaching** Across the cycle, the pattern I see for M2 is that Marcus has a genuine coaching orientation and that the quality is visible when conditions allow it. Both direct reports have observed this. The tension is cadence and access. The coaching is not reliably available under delivery pressure, and the shift to a more directive mode happens without signal. Nadia's observation adds an additional layer: the coaching mode is available but not always initiatable from her side, which suggests that the relational scaffolding for coaching is not yet symmetrical across the team. Marcus has built a stronger coaching relationship with Caleb, and the question for the conversation is whether that is intentional, developmental, or a product of familiarity. **M3 — Manage with Connection** The evidence for M3 is consistent across both the upward synthesis and the Form C peer observations. Marcus is experienced as genuinely caring and relationally present. The signal that appears in both the upward feedback and Rachel's peer observation is about distribution: the connection experience is not uniform across the team. Longer-tenure team members experience higher-quality connection. Nadia's observation is direct about this. I want to understand whether Marcus is aware of this asymmetry and how he thinks about building connection deliberately with newer team members rather than allowing it to accumulate through tenure. --- ### Post-conversation scores | Dimension | Score | Rationale | |---|---|---| | D1: Delivering Results and Impact | Meets Expectations | Marcus delivered on core commitments and navigated the Q3 reprioritisation with clarity, but the evidence does not show a cycle of stretch delivery at the level his role warrants. | | D2: Learning and Self-Cultivation | Meets Expectations | The learning is real and eventually visible in the work, but Marcus's own account confirmed that the cultivation this cycle was largely incidental rather than intentional, which matters at this level. | | D3: Collaboration and Partnership | Exceeds Expectations | Marcus is a strong and trusted partner across the enterprise, and the conversation confirmed he is actively working on the handoff gap with specific team-level actions already underway. | | D4: Stewardship and Accountability | Meets Expectations | Personal accountability is a clear strength; the documentation and institutional knowledge gap is a real stewardship risk that Marcus acknowledged and has not yet addressed systematically. | | D5: Innovation and Entrepreneurship | Developing | The conceptual work is genuinely strong, but Marcus confirmed in the conversation that the commercial case-building is a gap he has not yet developed a strategy for, and the pattern of stalled ideas is not improving cycle on cycle. | | M1: Manage with Integrity | Exceeds Expectations | Marcus's integrity as a manager is demonstrated consistently, and the conversation showed he is developing a more deliberate approach to communicating during uncertainty rather than staying silent. | | M2: Manage through Coaching | Meets Expectations | Coaching quality is high when conditions allow, but the cadence and access gaps are real, and the coaching relationship is not yet symmetrical across the team. | | M3: Manage with Connection | Meets Expectations | The relational foundation is strong, but the asymmetry in connection quality across tenure bands is a pattern Marcus needs to address deliberately rather than allowing it to self-correct over time. | --- ### Post-conversation note The evidence review had surfaced two themes I expected to dominate the conversation: the handoff gap in D3 and the documentation risk in D4. Both were confirmed, but the conversation shifted significantly on D3 when Marcus shared that he had already begun a series of deliberate transitions with three external partners, briefing in team members as the primary contacts and stepping back from the relationship anchor role. That was not visible in the evidence dashboard. It changed how I scored D3 from a likely Meets to an Exceeds, because it demonstrated that Marcus is managing the gap actively rather than recognising it in retrospect. The conversation also produced a meaningful shift on D5. Marcus was more candid about the commercial case-building gap than I expected, and he named it as something he has been avoiding rather than developing. That level of self-honesty is a signal in itself, but it also confirmed that D5 is the most substantive developmental priority for the next cycle. The post-conversation score of Developing on D5 is not a judgment on his innovation capability. It is an honest signal that the gap between his conceptual strength and his ability to move ideas into funded, committed initiatives needs direct attention at this stage of his career. --- ## Section 6: The Loop Closed Marcus's Follow-Through commitment is precise: in group problem-solving sessions, he will not offer his framing in the first thirty minutes, and with each team lead he will hold a monthly session where the agenda and direction belong to them. That commitment is not a note in a development plan. It is a perceptual shift that will surface in the next AACC cycle at the Aware step. When Marcus encounters a D3 collaboration moment, say the next cross-divisional design sprint or a high-stakes M2 coaching conversation with a team lead who is stuck, he will arrive with a different first question than he did this cycle. Instead of scanning the room for what is missing and moving to fill it, he will be attuned to what is forming in others and what his presence is doing to that formation. The Aware step in the next cycle will carry richer signal because Marcus has named the specific perceptual habit he is working to change. Reflection feeds perception. What he committed to in IRTF changes what he is capable of noticing in the next contribution moment. The other handoff runs in the opposite direction. Marcus's highest-stakes Co-create contribution this cycle came in D5, where he co-developed a new programme architecture for the Learning Institute's flagship leadership series. He did not deliver it alone: the architecture was built with a cross-functional team over three months, and Marcus held the integrative design role. The act of building it at that level of complexity, and of watching where his team found independent momentum and where they stalled waiting for him, surfaced a signal he could not have seen from the outside. He saw, in the Co-create process itself, that his team's stalling points were not where the problems were hardest. They were where they anticipated he would step in. That observation is the In-Search prompt for the next IRTF cycle. It opens a deeper inquiry: not just whether Marcus creates space in sessions, but whether his presence as a leader has trained his team to wait for his resolution even before he speaks. Contribution, at its highest point, reveals the next edge. That is the loop closing.