Manager/Admin Guide

Who can access Engagement Signals

At present, the main Engagement Signals workspace is restricted to users who can access the organisation and have the required role permissions. In the current product, that means the area is aimed at admins and RPO users rather than every manager in the organisation.

This is worth being clear about from the start, because Engagement Signals sits closer to organisation-level reporting than day-to-day people management.

---

Your role as a report owner

If you create or manage Engagement Signals snapshots, your responsibility is not just to click generate. In practice, you are shaping the reporting window, choosing the right cohort, sense-checking the included scorecards, interpreting the report carefully, and deciding how widely it should be shared.

That makes report ownership part analytical and part governance.

In practice, a strong report owner usually does three things well:

• asks a clear reporting question
• defines a sensible cohort
• shares the result with the right level of caution

---

Snapshot lifecycle

Snapshots move through a small set of operational states. When a snapshot is Queued, it has been created and is still generating. Completed means the report is ready to open. Failed means the generation job did not complete successfully and may need a retry. Deleted means the snapshot is no longer available in the main workspace.

Once a snapshot is completed, you can rename it, export it, manage public links, or delete it. If a snapshot fails, you can retry generation using the same saved cohort and date-range shape.

---

Practical caveats for admins

There are a few behaviours worth keeping in mind while running the reporting workflow. Snapshot generation happens asynchronously, so the list may need a manual refresh before the latest state appears. The main Engagement Signals workspace is also optimised around recent activity rather than a full historical archive view.

A snapshot can complete even when the narrative layer is unavailable. When that happens, it usually means the score data was usable but the comment evidence was not strong enough to support a reliable narrative. Region, department, and manager comparisons are also only as strong as the reporting data attached to the underlying profiles and scorecards.

The caveats worth keeping in mind are:

• generation is asynchronous
• the list is optimised around recent activity
• narrative quality depends on comment quality
• breakdown quality depends on profile reporting data

---

Why scorecard group metadata matters

Engagement Signals does not only rely on a participant's current live profile. It also relies on the saved group metadata attached to the scorecards that feed the report, especially region, department, and manager.

That matters because Signals is often being used to answer reporting questions about a specific period or organisational boundary. If someone changes manager, department, or structure after a scorecard was completed, live profile data on its own can blur the reporting picture.

Saved scorecard groups help keep the reporting context anchored to the review cycle that produced the data. In practice, that makes it easier to:

• build cleaner region, department, and manager comparisons
• avoid misclassifying scorecards after organisational changes
• explain why a scorecard appears inside a given cohort
• trust that the narrative is being generated against the right reporting boundary

If a breakdown looks surprising in Signals, one of the first checks worth making is whether the source scorecards are carrying the correct saved groups.

---

Good governance practices

The most useful habits are often the simplest ones. Keep snapshot titles clear and consistent. Be explicit about the reporting question before generating a snapshot. Use anonymous sharing by default unless there is a strong reason not to. Treat low-sample comparisons carefully in stakeholder discussion, and use the methodology page when you need to explain how the narrative was produced.