Good to know! Our delegate thread is our main point of communication. Thanks for checking it.
I would like to suggest the inclusion of how you arrive to your conclusions on the clarity and depth in personal DIP reports. The impact and timing verticals of the rubric are more straightforward, but clarity and depth can be more subjective.
We know this is time consuming, but suggest this given that: the application of the rubric is subjective, those verticals are the most subjective among the DF criteria and that DF significatively impacts overall compensation for smaller delegates who need to offset the VP multiplier penalty. For example, why is our comment in the Audit Program deemed as a 2 (ambiguous or has errors according to the DIP bible). In our case for instance, DF is the main reason we don’t qualify for DIP this month and reading some comments in the delegate group we see this is the case for others too. Your comments around this would improve our participation or at least shed some light around how you’re thinking around it.
For the future, thinking around the subject of applying changes to the DIP, it can also be clearer for delegates if you specify how regularly you may be raising the bar for participation.