Prototype navigation only — switching does not authenticate across portals or change tenancy. Employer work uses employer sign-in; Operations staff use the Ops staff switcher.
AUD-2026-AQ-014 · Assessment-quality audit · Immutable append-only report
Pattern detected; human review required. One reviewer submitted 72% materially high ratings and another submitted 48% materially low ratings. Twelve extreme ratings lacked sufficient comments.
Critical (0)
Warning (3)
Reviewer score distribution is materially higher than the organisational baseline
WarningOne reviewer submitted 72% materially high ratings (4.5–5.0).
Assessment quality · Human reviewer calibration recommended.
Reviewer score distribution is materially lower than the organisational baseline
WarningOne reviewer submitted 48% materially low ratings (0.0–1.5).
Assessment quality · Review sample assessments and confirm scoring standards.
Extreme ratings require evidence review
WarningTwelve extreme ratings lacked sufficient comments.
Evidence · Require comments for ratings at 0.0–1.0 and 4.5–5.0.
Observation (1)
Repeated identical scoring may require calibration
ObservationUnusual rating pattern detected where every pillar received the same score on multiple assessments.
Assessment quality · Include calibration in the next HR review meeting.
Information (0)
James Otieno
Grace Njeri
Possible scoring imbalance indicators require human review and do not automatically accuse reviewers of bias or misconduct.
Scoring-distribution analysis
Distribution shows polarisation between two reviewers rather than an organisational baseline issue.
Possible bias and imbalance indicators
Possible scoring imbalance detected. These indicators require human review and are not automatic accusations.
Extreme-score rate increased versus the prior 90-day window.
Assessment-quality audit using the ERN 1–5 half-step scale. Score bands are analytical references, not verdicts. Patterns identify possible scoring imbalance for human review only.