{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/receive-feedback-in-two-passes-signal-first-verdict-later",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0603",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Receive feedback in two passes: signal first, verdict later",
  "summary": "You can extract information without surrendering judgment.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "In the first pass, identify the concrete observation, claimed impact and requested change. Ask clarifying questions and write down what can be checked. In the second pass, evaluate accuracy, context, patterns and whether the change is worth making. This separates emotional reaction from evidence review.",
  "limits": [
    "Do not delay urgent safety or misconduct action under the banner of reflection."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-feedback-to-behavior-change"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-5B538054D9CC9CEC",
    "RS-C261A3B526BEC2C0"
  ],
  "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 interventions appear more useful when they direct attention toward the task and possible improvement rather than threatening self-esteem or shifting attention to the person.",
      "source_id": "RS-C261A3B526BEC2C0",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "This is a mechanism-level pattern, not a guarantee that neutral wording will prevent defensiveness.",
      "locator": "Discussion of Feedback Intervention Theory moderators"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "A critical comment triggers immediate defense or immediate acceptance."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Do not delay urgent safety or misconduct action under the banner of reflection."
  ],
  "example": "You disagree with 'poor stakeholder management' but still extract the factual example: two updates lacked dates and owners.",
  "check": "You can state what useful signal remains even if you reject the global conclusion.",
  "steps": [
    "Observation extracted.",
    "Impact extracted.",
    "Change request extracted.",
    "Checkable evidence identified.",
    "Agreement or disagreement decided after review."
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-5B538054D9CC9CEC",
      "title": "Performance feedback: an evidence review",
      "url": "https://prod.cipd.org/en/knowledge/evidence-reviews/performance-feedback/"
    },
    {
      "id": "RS-C261A3B526BEC2C0",
      "title": "Effect of face-to-face verbal feedback on workplace task performance of health professionals",
      "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7170595/"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0603",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0593",
      "type": "useful_with",
      "url": "/knowledge/make-the-receiver-reconstruct-the-message"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}