Supporter outcomes: promised level versus measured

What you’re making

A draft outcomes report in the shape a commercial supporter’s CGA usually wants, without letting their language become the finding. The spine is the same as the post-activity outcomes report: every figure traceable, every claim at the Moore level you measured.

The dialect is the extra column: promised versus measured. If the grant said competence (level 4) and you measured knowledge (level 3) plus intent, the report says that in those words. A 90-day report that “shows performance” because the deck needed a win is how independence fails after the activity, not during it.

What to have open

The grant outcomes paragraph you actually submitted (your words). The supporter’s report headings, if they sent a template. The window (often 90 days after the last session; use the date in the agreement). Numbers: invitations, completers, pre/post, cases or skills-station results, self-reported intent, any follow-up you really did. Themes from de-identified open text. A previous report that got through the accredited provider’s review.

No learner-level rows. No unapproved faculty slides. Aggregates and themes only.

The prompt

I am drafting a supporter-facing outcomes report for an accredited independent medical education activity. I am the author of record. The accredited provider still owns the file. Do not draft the report yet.

MOORE LEVEL WE PROMISED IN THE GRANT (number and name):
[paste]

WHAT WE ACTUALLY MEASURED, AND WITH WHAT INSTRUMENT:
[paste]

REPORT WINDOW REQUIRED:
[e.g. 90 days after last session, date]

THE NUMBERS I HOLD (do not add to these):
[paste]

THEMES FROM OPEN TEXT (de-identified):
[paste]

SUPPORTER TEMPLATE HEADINGS, IF ANY:
[paste headings only]

Tell me:
1. In four sentences, what these data support, including the unflattering parts.
2. A two-column list: promised level versus measured level. If they do not match, say so in one plain sentence I can put in the report.
3. Claims I might be tempted to make that the instruments do not support (especially intent written as performance, or satisfaction written as competence).
4. What a 90-day report still cannot know if we did not collect follow-up.

Use only my figures. Do not infer a change over time I did not measure.

Draft the report.

HEADINGS:
[paste the supporter template headings, or]
1. Activity and learners
2. Gap and objectives (our words)
3. Level promised, level measured
4. Results, by instrument
5. What we did not measure
6. Limitations
7. What we would change
8. Implications for the next activity, not for a product

Requirements:
- Open section 3 with the promised-versus-measured sentence from turn one.
- Every number is one I gave you. Do not round. Do not invent a denominator.
- Self-reported intent stays labelled as intent. Competence in an educational setting stays labelled as competence. Do not write performance or patient health unless I supplied those data.
- Do not name a product, a class “gap” that only one brand fills, or a “need” I did not give you.
- Mark holes [NEEDS:].
- Match the tone of the sample. Less promotional than the sample is fine. More promotional is not.

SAMPLE IN OUR HOUSE VOICE:
[paste]

NUMBERS AND THEMES, UNCHANGED:
[paste again]

What good output looks like

Section 3 is the first thing a reviewer reads. If you promised 4 and measured 3, that sentence is early and calm. Section 5 lists the follow-up you did not do. Nothing sounds like a brand launch.

How to check it

Run the number audit. Then:

Promise pass. Put your finger on the grant sentence and on section 3. If they disagree, the report is wrong, not the grant.

Level pass. Satisfaction is not competence. Intent is not performance. A case score is not a chart audit.

Independence pass. Search for product names, “novel,” and “unmet need.” If they appeared and you did not type them, delete them.

Window pass. The draft does not claim 12-month practice change from a 90-day self-report.

Where it goes wrong

It writes the grant they wanted. Supporter templates reward fluency. Fluency is how level 2 becomes level 5.

It invents a follow-up. Ninety days is a reporting date, not a measurement you forgot you took.

It forgets the accredited provider. The joint provider or MEC can draft. The accredited office still owns the file and the claim.

It skips the audit. A transposed n in a supporter deck is still a transposed n in the activity file.

Supporter outcomes: promised level versus measured · bettermethod.ai/recipes/supporter-outcomes/ · Last reviewed August 2026
These tools change often. Check the review date before you rely on anything product-specific in here, and check the guidance against your own accreditor and organization policies.