---
name: show-whats-working-and-what-isnt
description: "Give your team a clear view of which work helps and which needs a closer look."
category: Strategy & Measurement
stage: —
definitive_article: GAP — to be written
status: needs-work
---

# Show what's working and what isn't

Give your team a clear view of which work helps and which needs a closer look. This guide puts each result next to its goal and proof. Start with the full list, so weak results do not get left out.

**The path:** Full inventory → Agreed targets → Evidence verdicts → Diagnosis

**Start when:** A performance review needs a fair verdict on all in-scope active work.

## Inputs

- [Collect verified weekly measurements](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=collect-verified-weekly-measurements#task-collect-verified-weekly-measurements) and the current active inventory, with periods and launch dates.
- [Goals, Content, Targeting: the result, proof and people for this work](https://blitzmetrics.com/gct-business-strategy/) targets, evaluation windows and relevant sample limits.
- Prior comparable results and known recent changes.

## Steps

1. State each item’s goal and evidence rule before assigning a verdict. Judge an awareness asset and a lead asset by their different jobs; do not use one blended threshold.
2. Reconcile the actual active inventory with the report. Retain items whose source is missing or whose results are weak instead of quietly omitting them.
3. For comparable, sufficient data, mark working or not meeting target with the value, threshold, source and trend. For an immature test or incomplete source, use not yet assessable and name the missing evidence or review window.
4. Make the winners and weak results equally clear. Keep the unresolved group visible; the source’s two main verdict lists do not justify forcing unknown data into either.
5. Write each line as item, job, actual result and trend. Link detailed reports and sample limitations. Observed direction alone does not prove a cause or a profitable outcome.
6. Hand evaluated weak cases to diagnosis. Hand supported winners to the action owner for a bounded decision, and unresolved cases to an evidence check with owner and due condition.
7. Save the dated verdict page and the full inventory reconciliation. Carry it into the weekly report and compare against the same rules next cycle.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

Quality assurance (QA) means checking the result against its agreed requirements; see the [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/).

- [ ] All active items are accounted for, including not-yet-assessable cases.
- [ ] Every verdict cites the right target, period and evidence.
- [ ] Diagnosis, action and missing-data handoffs are separate and owned.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example. This is not a client result or proof of a completed run.**

A fictional weekly review has three tests. One meets its cost-per-qualified-lead target, one misses after its full window, and one has only a day of data. The first two receive supported verdicts. The third remains not yet assessable with a planned review date; it is neither a hidden loss nor a claimed winner.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

[Diagnose weak results](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=analyze-why-underperformers-fail#task-analyze-why-underperformers-fail) receives evaluated weak cases; [Pause weak tests and scale proven winners](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=kill-underperformers-scale-winners#task-kill-underperformers-scale-winners) receives supported decisions and [Write the agreed weekly report](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=submit-weekly-maa-report-every-friday#task-submit-weekly-maa-report-every-friday) receives the full picture.

This work supports the [Content Factory: Produce, Process, Post and Promote](https://blitzmetrics.com/content-factory/) across its relevant stages. It uses the actual inputs and next owner above; a strategy or measurement guide does not manufacture transcripts, clips or other unrelated stage outputs.

## Start with an agent

Give the AI worker this recipe, the real Inputs, the desired result and the actions already authorized. Ask for the saved output, source evidence, passed and failed checks, and the next owner. A skill is a set of instructions. Loading it does not prove access, install a scheduled job or complete the work. Use the [current installation guide](https://localservicespotlight.com/install/) only if reusable setup is needed; a ZIP contains instructions and is not an access grant.

Use the actual supported app and verified source access. A model name is not a promise of browser control, memory or unattended work. For recurring work, inspect the real job’s trigger, owner, timezone and observed firing; this recipe creates no schedule. Before any media playback, mute the player and set volume to zero. A silent review does not prove sound was heard.

## Record the real execution

Open the run record when work begins. Keep one execution ID, the exact starting recipe revision, input sources and actual state. Write a [meta article, the record of one real execution](https://blitzmetrics.com/meta-article-prompt/) with results, checks, failures and next owner. Link it to this task in the [Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/). Writing is required; public release follows existing authority.

Reuse the same execution ID for internal reviews, meta writing, revisions and retries. A blocked run stays open with its dependency and owner, without an invented finish time. Keep historical public examples as dated evidence; article counts alone are not verified execution frequency. Use supported findings to propose and verify a recipe improvement.


<!-- factory-layer:start -->

## Factory chain (do not treat this as isolated)

- **Phase:** —
- **Importance:** 3/5 `●●●○○` — frequency 3, revenue 3, gating 2 (supporting)
- **Suggested previous station:** —
- **Suggested next station:** —
These stations are generated neighbors, not verified prerequisites or handoffs. Follow the task’s actual Inputs and Handoff sections.
- **Handoff:** Save this task’s actual output, source, date and checks where the receiving owner can read them. Follow the Inputs and Handoff sections for its next step.

## Model routing (same factory, any engine)

- **This task's lane:** `any` — Any capable chat model (Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini). SOP following, drafts, checklists.
- **Single-engine path:** Use the capable AI app you already have. Check its required tools and access before starting. Pass the actual result and proof to the next task.
- **Optional multi-engine:** A tested local model may draft; a stronger model may review facts and voice. Use supported tools for approved actions. Pick models from observed quality and cost; a model name does not prove it can run this task.
- **Never** store the working state in one vendor's memory. Files in the Content Library are the bridge.

<!-- factory-layer:end -->
## Definitive article & links

- A dedicated canonical article is not mapped in this task’s source. Use the linked method references above and resolve the correct existing owner before creating another page.
- [This task in the Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=show-whats-working-and-what-isnt#task-show-whats-working-and-what-isnt)
- [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/)
- [Definitive article and task recipe standard](https://blitzmetrics.com/definitive-article-guide/)
- [How recipes and run records work together](https://localservicespotlight.com/meta-articles/)

## Review and evidence still needed

The inherited contributor status is `needs-work`. It is preserved, not promoted by this rewrite. That label alone does not verify document readiness, account access, an actual execution or a client outcome.

A relevant real execution, source evidence, independent reviewer and accepted handoff remain to be recorded. The fictional example teaches the method and does not fill a real-run evidence gap. The opening and full method need a named semantic reviewer; the task-specific path is source guidance, with visible desktop/mobile presentation still to check.