↯Clarificeprototype
DayWeekQuarter
← Dashboard
TW

Theo Watanabe

Junior Designer · Design · IC2 · reports to Fatima Adeyemi

Useful score · Week ending Jul 7
36Needs attention
vs Design (n=6) · widened

Driving value

  • —

Watch-outs

  • ▾ Collaboration: bottom of cohort (16.7th pct)
  • ▾ Tool leverage: bottom of cohort (16.7th pct)
  • ▾ Engagement (raw activity): bottom of cohort (8.3th pct)
Outcomes
0
docs, PRs, features, decisions
Value delivered
0.0
impact × credit
Days worked
1
no time off
Follow-through
—
no commitments due

Activity flow

Google
2026-07-012026-07-01

Why this score

weighted sum of cohort percentiles
Value delivered0 pts/day · weight 45%50th pct → +22.5
Collaboration0 peers+threads · weight 20%16.7th pct → +3.3
Consistency0.5 0–1 · weight 15%50th pct → +7.5
Tool leverage1 tools · weight 10%16.7th pct → +1.7
Engagement (raw activity)1 signals/day · weight 10%8.3th pct → +0.8
Useful score35.8

Evidence vs level rubric

IC · IC2
Evidence suggests below level

Little supporting evidence on several rubric expectations this period — a basis for a leveling conversation, decided by a human.

  • Impact & scope
    Owns small features end-to-end.
    ~Some evidence
    • · Value delivered in the 46th percentile of their track · 0 outcomes
  • Collaboration & influence
    Works well with their team and builds shared context.
    ✗No evidence
    • · Collaboration signal in the 9th percentile of track
  • Execution & reliability
    Reliably delivers what they commit to.
    ○Human-assessed
    • · Too few decided commitments this period to judge
  • Direction & judgment
    Exercises good judgment on well-scoped problems.
    ✗No evidence
    • · No decisions or project leadership observed this period
  • Craft & quality
    Sustains high quality and a steady, dependable cadence.
    ~Some evidence
    • · Cadence in the 50th percentile of track

Evidence mapped to your imported rubric. A human makes the leveling call — this is the receipts, not the verdict. Evidence found for 4 of 5 expectations.

Follow-through

did they do what they committed to?
—0/0 commitments kept
  • No commitments due this period.

AI leverage & augmentation

what agents can take on · what’s above an agent
0%of observed activity is routine enough to offload to an agent
AI-assisted · 100%

Above an agent

  • ▴ Little human-differentiated output observed this period

Task-level augmentation analysis — where agents can help and where human work must be kept. Not a person-level replaceability score.

Value chains & cost

signal → meeting → doc → shipped · with a cost ledger

No reconstructed value chains in this period.

Outcomes this period

None recorded.