Review And Validate

Review and Validate

When to use

For strategy office, FP&A, or scorecard owners running periodic BSC reviews. Scoring measures alone misses the point — this skill tests whether causal links from build-strategy-map held in the data, separating execution failure from theory failure.

What this skill does not do

• Does not build or revise the strategy map — recommends build-strategy-map revisit when theory problems are diagnosed; does not rewrite mechanisms inline.
• Does not set targets or select measures — reads existing scorecard artifacts only.
• Does not invent actuals — missing data → INPUT NEEDED / structured first pass.
• Does not replace OKR retros — BSC causal-link testing is distinct from quarterly KR scoring.

Preconditions

Provisional mode

When map or period data is incomplete:

• Label CONFIDENCE: structured first pass.
• Score only measures with data; mark links NOT TESTABLE THIS PERIOD where leading data absent.
• Do not assign CONTRADICTED without evidence.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (governance-tracking):
  • High: Data current and instrumented; every measure scored; every link tested with lag rules applied.
  • Medium: Partially current data or [PROVISIONAL] scoring convention; some links NOT YET OBSERVABLE.
  • Low: Stale or missing actuals — flag explicitly; no causal verdicts presented as fact.
• Tag vocabulary: [verify], [review], [PROVISIONAL], [unverified — planning convention] on default lag windows.
• Failure modes:
  • Strategic advice vs. support: Diagnoses execution vs theory with evidence; recommends map revisit — strategist decides whether to refresh.
  • Client confidentiality: Review may contain proprietary performance data — CONFIDENTIAL header; destination check.
  • Accountability gap: CONTRADICTED links require execution-vs-theory split with evidence — not a single RAG rollup that hides theory failure.
  • Analytical Rigor: N/A — governance review, not MECE decomposition.
  • Incentive Gaming: Guards against RAG-washing (green leading measures while lagging outcomes flat) and execution-default bias (blaming teams when theory is contradicted). Requires explicit theory-problem call when conditions met; early map refresh trigger prevents deferring uncomfortable map revisions.
• Escalation triggers:
  • Two+ theory-problem links or one on load-bearing top link → recommend early map refresh.
  • Measure definition changed mid-period → flag execution diagnosis unreliable.
  • Mixed evidence on CONTRADICTED link → inconclusive; name data needed next period.
  • External confound on leading measure → execution problem or NOT TESTABLE; do not confirm theory.

Workflow

Step 1: Load artifacts

Read:

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/balanced-scorecard/CLAUDE.md — scoring/status convention, lag assumptions
• The live strategy map at the profile location
• Current-period measure actuals vs targets

Step 2: Score each measure

For each measure: current value, target, status per profile convention, trend vs prior period.

Use the profile's convention if it differs. Tag [PROVISIONAL] if using defaults.

Step 3: Causal link test (core discipline)

For every upward causal link in the strategy map, run against period data:

1. Did the LEADING measure move as predicted?
   → No: NOT TESTABLE THIS PERIOD
   → Yes: continue

2. Has enough lag elapsed?
   → No: NOT YET OBSERVABLE
   → Yes: continue

3. Did the LAGGING measure move as predicted?
   → Yes: CONFIRMED
   → No: CONTRADICTED

Default lag windows (profile overrides when set) [unverified — planning convention]:

Do not force CONTRADICTED inside the lag window.

Step 4: Execution vs theory split (every CONTRADICTED link)

Do not default to "execution problem" because it's the easier conversation.

Execution problem — when any of: initiative unfunded/unstaffed; delivered differently than designed; leading move from external confound; measure definition changed; artifact not real improvement.

Theory problem — only when all hold: initiative ran as designed; leading move attributable to initiative; adequate lag elapsed; downstream still did not move as mechanism predicted.

Fix for theory problem: Revisit build-strategy-map for this link — state explicitly.

If mixed → inconclusive; name data for next period.

Step 5: Roll up and escalation

Per perspective: measure status + link counts (CONFIRMED / CONTRADICTED / NOT YET OBSERVABLE).

Early map refresh trigger: Two+ theory-problem links, or one on load-bearing top link → recommend pulling forward annual map refresh.

Step 6: Gaming-pattern check

Before output: confirm no perspective shows all-green measures while top-level lagging outcomes are red without a CONTRADICTED or theory-problem flag on the relevant links.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
REVIEW PERIOD: [period]
SCORING CONVENTION: [from profile or default RAG]

MEASURE STATUS:
| Objective | Measure | Current | Target | Status | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | G/A/R | ... |

CAUSAL LINK VALIDATION:
[Lower objective] → [Upper objective]
  Mechanism (from map): [quoted or summarized]
  Leading measure: [moved as predicted | did not move | N/A]
  Lag elapsed: [yes | no — testable after [period]]
  Downstream measure: [moved as predicted | did not move | N/A]
  Verdict: [CONFIRMED | NOT YET OBSERVABLE | CONTRADICTED | NOT TESTABLE THIS PERIOD]
  [If CONTRADICTED:]
    Diagnosis: [execution problem | theory problem | inconclusive]
    Evidence: [specific — not assertion]
    Recommended fix: [re-execute initiative | revisit build-strategy-map | gather [data] next period]

PERSPECTIVE ROLLUP:
| Perspective | Measure summary | Link summary |
|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... |

OVERALL: [verdict] — [whether theory problems warrant early map refresh]

Worked example

Input: Q1 review. Map link: "Onboarding NPS → Grow ARR" with mechanism "NPS lift reduces churn." NPS improved 32→45 (green); ARR growth flat (amber). Initiative ran on schedule; 2-period lag elapsed for Customer→Financial.

Expected output (excerpt):

CAUSAL LINK VALIDATION:
Improve onboarding NPS → Grow ARR 25%
  Mechanism: NPS lift reduces churn, improving net retention
  Leading measure: moved as predicted
  Lag elapsed: yes
  Downstream measure: did not move as predicted
  Verdict: CONTRADICTED
    Diagnosis: theory problem
    Evidence: onboarding delivered per plan; NPS gain attributable; ARR flat after lag window
    Recommended fix: revisit build-strategy-map — churn may be driven by factors other than onboarding NPS

Quality checks before delivering

• Every measure scored with status and trend
• Every map causal link tested (not just measures scored)
• Lag windows applied — NOT YET OBSERVABLE where appropriate
• CONTRADICTED links get execution-vs-theory split with evidence
• Theory problems recommend map revisit, not "try harder"
• Early refresh flagged if threshold met
• RAG-washing pattern checked before output

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/balanced-scorecard/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /balanced-scorecard:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Offer dashboard when measure table exceeds ~10 rows. Natural next branches: early build-strategy-map refresh, initiative re-commitment, or gather data for inconclusive links.