Review Challenge
The Review Challenge report page presents the visuals listed below. Each row gives the on-screen name, its underlying metric, and a short description; see the metric glossary for the full formula and interpretation.
Visuals:
| Name | Measure | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews challenged | Count of reviews where the review was challenged (worker or manager+1 formally contested the rating) | Number of performance reviews that were challenged, i.e. where the worker (or the manager's manager) disputed the rating rather than accepting it. It flags friction in the review process; a rising figure signals more workers contesting outcomes. It counts reviews, not people. Read against # Reviews for the challenge share. |
| Let's discuss between manager & worker | Count of reviews where Let's Discuss Completed = Yes÷ count of all reviews | Share of reviews where the "Let's Discuss" step (the manager-worker conversation about the rating) was completed. It measures engagement with that discussion stage; a higher rate means more reviews included a completed manager-worker discussion, a low rate means the step is often skipped. Because it is a share of the total in view, filtering re-bases it. It counts reviews, not people. |
| Rating alignment | Count of reviews where final alignment = Yes÷ count of all reviews | Share of reviews where the worker's self-rating matched the calibrated final rating. It puts the final-alignment count in context so groups of different sizes compare fairly; a higher rate means workers' self-view largely agrees with where reviews land, a low rate flags divergence after calibration. Read against the initial-alignment rate to see whether the review process narrows or widens the gap. |
| Rating changed by manager | Count of reviews, by whether the manager changed the rating (LL Rating Change = Yes / No) | Number of reviews split by whether the manager changed their rating during the review process versus leaving it unchanged. The Yes portion shows how often manager ratings move (for example after discussion or reflection); a large Yes share means ratings are frequently revised rather than fixed at first entry. On the donut each is shown as a share of the total. It counts reviews, not people. |
| Manager + 1 review challenge | Count of reviews, grouped by published rating, then by the Let's-Discuss rating, then by the final rating (three-level) | Number of reviews tracing how a rating evolves through the escalation path: the published (post-moderation) rating, then the rating after the manager-worker Let's Discuss step, then the final rating (where the manager's manager, +1, is involved in a challenge). Each ring is one stage and the size is the reviews following that path, so where an outer ring differs from the inner one the rating changed at that stage. It shows both how much movement happens across the stages and in which direction. It counts reviews, not people. |
| Rating changed manager | Count of reviews, by whether the manager changed the rating (LL Rating Change = Yes / No) | Number of reviews split by whether the manager changed their rating during the review process versus leaving it unchanged. The Yes portion shows how often manager ratings move (for example after discussion or reflection); a large Yes share means ratings are frequently revised rather than fixed at first entry. On the donut each is shown as a share of the total. It counts reviews, not people. |
This is a tip message.
For more information about the visuals and metrics used in Analytics Hub, refer toVisuals in Analytics hub and Metric dictionary, respectively.