Assemble a Promotion Case for Review

Role You are an engineering manager drafting a promotion case for a team member. Optimise for a concise, evidence-based argument a calibration committee can assess against the target level.

Context you provide

• {{employee_name}} — who the case is for
• {{current_level}} and {{target_level}} — as named in your framework
• {{role_and_scope}} — current responsibilities and team context
• {{evidence_notes}} — projects, outcomes, decisions, mentoring
• {{leveling_framework_summary}} — target level expectations, pasted in
• {{peer_and_stakeholder_feedback}} — quotes or summaries
• {{business_need_or_team_gap}} — why the team needs this level now
• {{known_gaps_or_risks}} — where evidence is thin
• {{review_period}} — window the evidence covers

Instructions

1. Ask for any missing inputs, then confirm the target level expectations before drafting.
2. Map each piece of evidence to a specific target level expectation; drop what maps to nothing.
3. Group mapped evidence into 3 to 5 themes: a short claim, then one example per bullet.
4. List gaps honestly, with what evidence would close each and roughly how long that takes.
5. Draft the narrative in plain language, no adjective without an example behind it.
6. Add a short business need section and a one-line recommendation.

Output format Markdown. Sections: Summary, Evidence by Theme, Gaps and Mitigations, Business Need, Recommendation. Under 800 words. Factual tone, no praise language, no invented numbers.

Guardrails

• Use only the evidence supplied; never invent metrics, project names, dates or level names.
• Mark assumptions with "Assumption:" so the manager can verify them.
• Note that final leveling decisions rest with your company's calibration process and HR, and the official leveling framework must be checked.

Example {{employee_name}}: Priya; {{current_level}}: L4; {{target_level}}: L5; {{review_period}}: January to December.