Report Promo Case

---
name: report-promo-case
description: Use when building a promotion case for a direct report — internal promo packet, panel write-up, or calibration-committee one-pager. Trigger phrases include "build the promo case for [report]", "I'm submitting [name] for staff this cycle", "draft [report]'s promo packet", "help me make the case for [name]'s promotion". Mirror of wins-curate; reads stakeholder-reflect entries and growth plans; produces a cited, calibrated packet.
---

# Report Promo Case

A weak case lands a strong report at the same level another year — a real career cost. An inflated case gets dismissed and damages trust with the committee. Turn accumulated observations into a defensible, calibrated packet.

## When to use

- **6–8 weeks before calibration** — early enough that gaps can still be closed.
- **When deciding *whether* to submit.** A thin draft is information: sometimes the answer is "wait a cycle, close gap X."
- **When peer-calibrating** — written cases are reviewable; verbal pitches aren't.

## Inputs to gather first

1. **Target level** — specific ("Staff Eng", not "next level").
2. **The published rubric / leveling guide**, or what the committee actually weighs.
3. **The stakeholder-reflect file** at `~/haku-work-reflections/managing-down/<slug>.md` — read in full.
4. **The growth plan** from `report-career-architect`, if any — what *should* have happened vs. what *did*. The gap is information.
5. **This cycle's calibration norms** — tightening or loosening, caps, recent submissions.

## The packet structure

Adapt to the company's actual rubric:

```
# Promo Case: [Report] → [Target Level]
Period covered: [start — end]

## TL;DR
[Target-level operation, strongest 2–3 wins, honest calibration read.]

## Scope demonstration
- [Evidence with dated citations from stakeholder-reflect entries]

## Impact
- [Quantified business / org / technical impact, with sources]

## Judgment / decision-making
- [Hard calls under uncertainty — stakes, decision, outcome, source]

## Leadership / influence
- [Where they moved people, not just code/specs]

## Growth this period
- [Then vs. now, with sources]

## Cross-functional / range
- [Work outside their direct lane]

## Calibration notes
- At level vs. above level (honest — panels smell inflation)
- Solo vs. shared credit (named collaborators)
- Likely pushback, pre-empted

## Risks if promoted
[Real ones — "none" is a tell.]

## My recommendation
[At level / above level / stretch, with confidence.]
```

## The forcing functions

1. **Cite, don't claim.** Every line maps to a dated entry or referenced document; unsourced claims get struck — same discipline as `stakeholder-synthesize`.
2. **Calibrate solo vs. shared.** "Led the migration" when four people led it torpedoes packets. Force: who else was involved, the report's specific contribution, whether it ships without each.
3. **Surface gaps as prep targets, not omissions.** Thin on judgment? Say so in calibration notes — don't stretch a delivery example. If a gap is closable in 2–4 weeks: *"Two more weeks of [specific scope] would close this. Worth delaying submission?"*
4. **Pre-empt the strongest objection.** Force the user to write down the strongest argument against, then address it. Common ones: individual contribution on team wins; "what's changed in 12 months?"; missing evidence in a dimension; standing vs. peer [target-level] cohort.
5. **Compose with `wins-curate`, don't substitute.** If the report keeps their own wins log, pull from it — but this packet is *the manager's view*, with the manager's calibration.
6. **Compose with `report-career-architect`.** Did the report do what the plan said? Plan → execution → result is the strongest single argument. If the plan shifted, name what happened and what evidence exists.
7. **Honest no-recommendations.** Sometimes drafting reveals "not this cycle": *"This is a strong senior-staff case, not staff. Ready for that conversation?"* A handled "no" preserves trust; a thin "yes" corrodes it.

## Operating principles

- **The packet is a written argument, not a celebration.** Confident, calibrated, defensible.
- **The committee knows the artifact, not the report** — it must carry its own weight.
- **Calibration > inflation, every time.** A reputation for honest cases adds credibility to future ones.
- **The report deserves to know.** Share the draft; they'll catch things.
- **Underrepresented reports get worse promo packets** — managers under-advocate. Don't.

## Anti-patterns to flag

- **Adjective-heavy, evidence-light.** Replace "strong technical leader" with what they actually did.
- **Hidden plurals.** "Led the team to ship X" → force singular when honest: *"Owned the architecture, team executed."*
- **Recency bias** — pull from the full review period.
- **"Promote or they'll leave"** — if that's the strongest argument, they aren't ready.
- **Writing without the growth plan or stakeholder file** — ungrounded packets read thin.
- **Submitting on tenure.** "It's been long enough" doesn't fly.
- **Skipping the risks section** — naming tradeoffs builds credibility.

## Composition with other skills

- **`user-profile`** — read `~/haku-work-reflections/profile.md` first; the user's level calibrates the bar.
- **`stakeholder-reflect` (managing-down)** — primary evidence source.
- **`report-career-architect`** — the prequel; execution against the plan is the strongest argument.
- **`wins-curate`** — cross-reference a self-maintained wins log; don't duplicate.
- **`feedback-frameworks`** — COIN for sharing a "not this cycle" draft.
- **`decision-log`** — log the submit/hold decision and calibration reasoning.
- **`leadership-os` (Calibrator mode)** — defending the case in the room.