Common Assessment Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
A short list of frequent pitfalls, what reviewers look for, and how to fix gaps fast.
How reviewers think
Reviewers are looking for repeatability and proof. They want to see that customer-centric practices are part of how you work, not a one-off initiative or a polished deck. Most low scores come from missing artifacts and unclear ownership, not from bad intent.
The most common mistakes
1) Submitting statements instead of evidence
Mistake: “We are customer-first” with no artifacts that show what you do, how often, and who owns it.
What reviewers look for: a recent example, a simple template, and proof that it is used.
Fix fast: pick one practice, collect the last two examples, and add a short note that explains what each artifact proves.
2) Evidence that is too old
Mistake: policies and decks that look good but have not been used in months.
What reviewers look for: artifacts from the last 30 to 60 days that show the practice is alive.
Fix fast: attach one recent sample that shows the policy in action, like a decision log entry, a QA sample, or a case review.
3) No named owner
Mistake: “the team owns this” or “shared responsibility” with no accountable person.
What reviewers look for: clear decision rights and escalation paths. Someone must be accountable for outcomes.
Fix fast: add an owner line to each standard and log. If a practice spans teams, define who has the final call.
4) Too much content, no structure
Mistake: sending a large folder of mixed files with no mapping to criteria.
What reviewers look for: a simple index that shows which artifact supports which criterion.
Fix fast: create a one page evidence index with three columns: criterion, artifact, what it proves.
5) Metrics without definitions
Mistake: numbers with no formula, no owner, and no decision attached.
What reviewers look for: a clear definition, how it is collected, and how it drives actions.
Fix fast: add a one paragraph metric definition and one example of a decision it influenced.
What reviewers usually ask
If you can answer these questions with evidence, your submission is likely in good shape.
- Show a recent example of this practice in action
- Who owns this, and what decisions can they make
- How do you handle exceptions and escalations
- How do you check quality and confirm adoption
- What changed because of this, and how do you know
How to fix gaps fast
Most gaps can be fixed without rewriting your whole operation. The goal is to make the practice visible and repeatable.
Choose the priority criteria
Start with the criteria that unlock consistency, such as standards, ownership, and service recovery.
Collect recent artifacts
Gather the last 30 to 60 days of examples. One strong example beats five old documents.
Label what each item proves
Add a one sentence note per artifact. This removes interpretation and speeds up review.
Close only the blocking gaps
Create the smallest missing template, log, or checklist needed to make the practice repeatable.
A simple next step
Run a 30 minute internal pre-review. Pick three criteria and try to produce evidence in five minutes each. If you cannot, that is your gap. Fix it with a simple template and one recent example.
