Short answer
A competency-based review compares evidence with published expectations for the employee's level. Everyone in the cycle uses the same Function version, and each rating is supported by prose that explains the judgment.
One snapshot for the cycle
Pin the Function version when the review cycle starts. Managers and employees should use those expectations through sign-off, even if HR edits the live Function later.
Record any unclear or missing expectation for the next Function version. Do not silently change the standard during the cycle.
- Function version used at kick-off
- Employee's role track and level
- Relevant competencies and expectations
- Shared rating scale
Structure the write-up
Start with the period's main story. For each competency, state the observable evidence, compare it with the level expectation, and explain the rating.
End with one or two development priorities. Each priority needs a concrete next action and an observable way to check progress.
Per-competency paragraph
For [competency], they [observable action] during [work]. [Artifact or feedback] shows [verified result]. This [met, exceeded, or fell short of] the [level] expectation because [reason]. Next, they will [concrete action] by [checkpoint].
What calibration needs
Bring the pinned expectations, proposed ratings, and concise evidence. Review disagreements by reading the expectation and testing the evidence against it.
Do not invent evidence or score work that reviewers could not observe. Mark insufficient context and decide how to gather it fairly.
After sign-off
The final narrative must match the calibrated rating. Employees should be able to see the expectation, evidence, judgment, and development path.
Use themes from the cycle to improve the next Function version without rewriting the standard that already governed the completed cycle.