Independent judgement for decision safety.
Independent judgement for decision safety.
The assessment is performed by a single reviewer, operating independently with sole responsibility for the assessment judgement itself.
This page exists for internal justification. It explains who is making the judgement, what that judgement is grounded in, and how independence is maintained.
It is not a personal narrative. It is a description of competence, exposure, and operating constraints.
Product Metrics Assessment is an independent assessment of whether the product metrics and behavioural signals you already rely on can safely support the decisions being made.
The assessment focuses on interpretability: what the numbers represent, what assumptions they depend on, and where decision risk is being carried by informal knowledge rather than explicit agreement.
This practice is grounded in repeated exposure to decision rooms where metrics are questioned after the fact — not in theoretical measurement models.
- Metrics used as decision evidence, then challenged when outcomes are reviewed.
- Disagreement that is framed as “interpretation”, but is actually a conflict of definitions or observability.
- Dashboards that remain stable while their meaning drifts due to consent, identity, session, or instrumentation constraints.
- Teams compensating for uncertainty with caveats, parallel spreadsheets, or private “adjustments”.
- Leadership requiring defensible explanations, not more charts.
The reviewer’s job is to name the underlying constraints and assess whether the current signals can carry the weight being placed on them.
The reviewer is expected to operate fluently across:
- product telemetry: instrumentation intent, failure patterns, and measurement drift
- consent, identity, and session constraints that change what is observable
- metric definition hygiene: meaning, comparability, and interpretive dependencies
- multi-surface behaviour: web/app/account/store, and cross-context identity assumptions
- decision exposure: scrutiny, accountability, and defensibility under questioning
This is assessed capability, not asserted seniority. If the work cannot be defended in plain language, it is not considered complete.
Independence is operational, not rhetorical. The reviewer does not own your analytics implementation, tool choices, roadmap, or outcomes.
This matters because interpretation risk often sits precisely where incentives exist to “make the metrics work”.
- Deliverable is an assessment artefact: judgement, assumptions, failure modes, and decision exposure.
- Tool-agnostic posture: platforms are treated as infrastructure, not identity.
- The artefact is written to be defensible to decision owners and reviewers, not tailored to internal preferences.
- If required access cannot be provided, or independence cannot be maintained, the assessment stops.
Verification links can be provided on request (e.g. LinkedIn) for identity confirmation only.
No social proof is used as persuasion. The work stands on the assessment artefact and its defensibility.