Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario: employment outcomes before an annual report
A worked example of how CIIS could test draft claims intended for board reporting against messy service and survey data, with limits visible before publication.
This page is an illustrative scenario, not a completed real-world pilot or anonymised client engagement. Figures and narrative are constructed to show the claim-review pattern. Your results depend on evidence quality and governance context. Product visuals are illustrative unless labelled otherwise, see current status.
Illustrative metrics · composite scenario · not a completed client engagement
6 weeks (restricted scope)
Illustrative duration
12
Outcome statements in example
3
Blocked from external use (example)
Executive Impact Summary (illustrative)
Example output
The challenge (example)
Imagine a multi-site employment support program preparing an annual report for its board and a place-based funder. Draft copy states that the program had "transformed employment outcomes across the community." Survey exports, attendance logs, and case notes do not support population-wide or causal wording, but the narrative is already in slide decks.
What CIIS would do in this scenario
- Import CSV survey and service extracts for the agreed reporting period.
- Structure twelve outcome statements with linked measures and evidence types.
- Run evidence-support and shareability review with program leads and an external reviewer.
- Produce a CIIS Executive Impact Summary where evidence and review support external use.
Before and after (illustrative)
Before
Weak claim
The initiative transformed employment outcomes across the community.
- Population-wide wording
- Causality implied
- No limitation on record
After CIIS-style review
Evidence-governed wording
Available survey and service data suggest improved employment-related indicators among participants who completed the program in the reporting period, with limits on comparability and coverage.
- Public use: Limited, caveats retained in board pack
- Key limitation: No comparison group
- Next action: Add follow-up wave or matched comparison where feasible
Illustrative outcomes
- Three statements marked internal-only or blocked before external release.
- Board pack uses governed wording aligned to source extracts.
- Example recommendation: continue with narrowed scope on two sites; expand evidence collection for causal claims.
What this is not
This illustrative scenario does not describe large-scale unstructured media analytics (news, social feeds, global policy corpora). That work sits under Impact Intelligence (separate consultancy). Impact Intelligence Lab focuses on CIIS, program evidence and evidence-supported reporting for boards, funders, and public-purpose teams.
Discuss your evidence challenge
Bring your weakest sentence and your evidence context. We will scope what is live today versus pilot work.
Discuss your evidence challenge