Consider an analyst preparing for a review after rebuilding a forecast that reduced reconciliation work. Their manager mentions a 9 box grid, and they need to know how that work might be discussed. A 9 box grid is a talent assessment matrix that places performance on one axis and potential on the other, commonly dividing each into low, medium, and high bands. Organizations define and use those judgments differently, and yours may not use the grid at all. The useful preparation is to understand the criteria that apply to you and make your contribution easy to evaluate.
Check how the grid applies
You do not need to predict which box someone might choose. Start by finding out whether the grid is part of your review process and what its terms mean there. These questions prevent you from building a promotion case around assumptions your organization does not share.
- Confirm whether your review uses the grid. Ask your manager how performance and growth are discussed in the process that applies to you.
- Ask how performance is defined. Look for expectations tied to your role, such as accuracy, judgment, ownership, and the quality of completed work.
- Ask what potential means locally. It might refer to readiness for broader responsibilities, but the definition should come from your organization, not an online diagram.
- Separate placement from promotion. A position on a grid does not by itself establish the requirements or timing for a role change.
If your manager cannot share a placement, the conversation can still be productive. Ask which responsibilities you are handling well and which evidence would demonstrate readiness for a broader scope. That gives you something actionable without treating a private assessment as a puzzle to solve.
If a promotion case is your next step, this checklist for matching evidence to a job leveling framework helps you test your examples against next-level expectations.
Check the evidence in your review material
A grid reduces complex work to a pair of judgments. Your review material needs to supply the detail that those labels leave out. For an analyst, the forecast matters less as a named deliverable than as evidence of the problem solved, the choices made, and the effect on people using it.
- Name the problem. Explain the discrepancy or recurring effort the forecast work addressed.
- Specify your ownership. Distinguish the analysis you led from decisions made jointly with finance or operations partners.
- State the result carefully. Describe the reconciliation work that changed, and mark any wider effect as unverified if it has not been measured.
- Point to support. Identify a reviewable artifact or a colleague who can confirm the handoff, without copying sensitive materials into a personal tool.
- Show a pattern where you have one. Related examples can demonstrate sustained judgment more clearly than a single impressive deliverable.
A line such as “Owned forecasting improvements” leaves too much for someone else to infer. A stronger account names the inconsistent inputs you identified, the method you changed, and how the team checked the revised forecast. That translation helps your manager discuss the work even if the assessment itself happens elsewhere.
Check what happens after the conversation
Your review is a chance to learn which evidence landed and what is still missing. Keep the questions focused on responsibilities you can demonstrate rather than asking for a promise about a future decision. The answers can guide what you capture next.
- Ask which examples best reflect your current level. Note where your manager sees strong performance and why.
- Identify one broader responsibility to test. Agree on work that would provide clearer evidence of the next-level of scope.
- Record the follow-up. Write down the expectation, the work you will take on, and when you will revisit the evidence.
Keep those examples and follow-ups together in ImpactLogr so your next conversation can build on what was said this time. Organize the evidence for your next review in ImpactLogr.