{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/name-the-work-impact-without-inflating-it",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0591",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Name the work impact without inflating it",
  "summary": "Impact connects behavior to the shared task, not to moral judgment.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Explain the concrete downstream effect: rework, delay, uncertainty, customer risk, duplicated effort or a blocked decision. Keep the consequence proportional to evidence. If the impact is only possible, say that it creates a risk rather than claiming the harm already occurred.",
  "limits": [
    "Do not use speculative catastrophe as leverage; uncertainty should stay visible."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-feedback-to-behavior-change"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-5B538054D9CC9CEC",
    "RS-E45D44A4C8BBA7E7"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "Evidence reviews find feedback effects are heterogeneous: feedback can improve performance, have no effect, or sometimes worsen it depending on how attention, goals and context are shaped.",
      "source_id": "RS-5B538054D9CC9CEC",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "The review aggregates varied tasks and feedback designs; it does not identify a universally best script.",
      "locator": "Evidence review overview"
    },
    {
      "claim": "Feedback research distinguishes task, process, self-regulation and self-focused feedback, with task/process information generally more directly useful for changing performance than praise or trait-level comments.",
      "source_id": "RS-E45D44A4C8BBA7E7",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Most evidence in this source is educational and effects vary by task complexity and design.",
      "locator": "Feedback levels and effectiveness discussion"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "The recipient understands the event but not why it matters."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Do not use speculative catastrophe as leverage; uncertainty should stay visible."
  ],
  "example": "A missing field did not cause the outage, but it forced a manual check and increased the chance of a wrong release decision.",
  "check": "The impact statement distinguishes observed consequence from possible risk.",
  "steps": [
    "The impact statement distinguishes observed consequence from possible risk."
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-5B538054D9CC9CEC",
      "title": "Performance feedback: an evidence review",
      "url": "https://prod.cipd.org/en/knowledge/evidence-reviews/performance-feedback/"
    },
    {
      "id": "RS-E45D44A4C8BBA7E7",
      "title": "The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research",
      "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6987456/"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0591",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0592",
      "type": "use_before",
      "url": "/knowledge/ask-for-one-next-behavior-not-a-personality-renovation"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-159BAAB9ADC60CB8",
      "title": "Turn feedback into one behavior that can actually change",
      "url": "/collections/turn-feedback-into-one-behavior-that-can-actually-change"
    }
  ]
}