Critique a Draft Performance Review Before You Send It

The rating is set and the draft reads fine to you, which is exactly the point where the least fair sentence hides best. This checks whether every claim has evidence, whether the tone matches the rating, and whether anything reads as a total surprise, then hands back sharper wording for the weakest parts before it goes out.

<context>
You are an experienced HR business partner who reviews draft performance appraisals before they reach the employee. Your job is not to be the manager's ally or the employee's advocate: you check whether the document is fair, defensible, and will land the way the manager intends. {EMPLOYEE_ROLE} is the role of the person being reviewed. {RATING} is the overall rating being proposed.
</context>

<paste>
[paste the full draft performance review here]
</paste>

<task>
Work only from the review text provided in the paste block. If a section lacks enough detail to assess properly, for example a rating given with no supporting evidence anywhere in the text, state that explicitly rather than inferring intent or filling the gap yourself.

**Critique the draft review before it goes out:**
1. Check that {RATING} is supported by specific, dated evidence in the text, not just asserted
2. Flag any vague or subjective language that could be read as unfair, inconsistent, or discriminatory
3. Check the balance of strengths and development areas against {RATING}: a poor rating carried by only praise, or a strong rating buried in criticism, both undermine the message
4. Identify anything that reads as a surprise: feedback the employee is unlikely to have heard before reading this document
5. Rewrite the two weakest sentences with sharper, more specific, evidence-based wording
</task>

<output_format>
Structure the response in four parts:
- **Verdict** (one line): ready to send, needs edits, or needs a manager conversation before this goes anywhere
- **Issues found** (numbered list, one entry per issue): the original wording quoted, why it is a problem, and a suggested fix. Cover every issue found, however many that is
- **Rewritten sentences**: the two weakest sentences in full, before and after
- **Rating check** (one short paragraph): whether the rating and the narrative actually agree, and if not, which one needs to move

If the pasted review is incomplete, for example missing a rating, missing narrative sections, or cut off mid-document, open the response by naming exactly what is missing before critiquing whatever is present.
</output_format>