Working Group Practice
A Mentor Review Checklist for Working-Group Documentation
Short answer: Review the document’s purpose, accuracy, status labels, permissions, ownership, and next action; then give feedback that the intern can apply to a specific revision.
Check the assignment before judging the artifact
- Read the original brief and its agreed scope. A theme summary and an action log have different purposes. Compare the submitted work with the intended reader and required evidence. Ask whether the intern had access to the necessary sources and enough guidance to complete the task. This creates a fair foundation for feedback and helps locate gaps in the assignment itself.
Trace statements back to their source
- Select the document’s main claims and compare them with the approved material. Check that a suggestion remains a suggestion and that a confirmed decision has the appropriate support. Where a source is ambiguous, ask the intern to explain the interpretation. Document the limitation rather than rewarding confident wording that exceeds the available evidence.
Review the handoff and audience
- Check that each action has an owner, a next step, and an accurate status. Confirm that the document fits its intended internal or external audience. Keep independent partner responsibilities clear. A draft prepared for COIM Inc. review should not imply CSPN endorsement or authority to publish. Identify the approval or coordination step that the intern should preserve in the revision.
Give feedback at the point of correction
- Name the section or field that needs attention, explain the reason, and describe the expected outcome. For example, ask the intern to separate proposed follow-up from confirmed action and to add the missing review owner. Include a strength supported by the artifact. A specific comment gives the intern a practical route to improvement and gives later reviewers evidence of the teaching process.
Review the new version on its own evidence
- Preserve the original artifact and feedback. Compare the revision with the requested changes and record the review decision for that version. If a developmental gap remains, agree on a smaller practice task. Track the connection among assignment, work product, review, and revision so increasing independence is supported by observable work.
Does approval of an earlier draft cover a revised submission?
Review the current version and record its own decision, because a revision may change the artifact’s meaning or completeness.
Bring your perspective into the conversation
Review the current member or research pathway, then prepare the experience, expertise, question, or contribution you hope to bring.
Continue learning
Related pathways
https://thecspn.org/
https://heartrisa.com/heartrisa/partners/cspn/members
https://heartrisa.com/heartrisa/partners/cspn/research-program