Executive summary
Summary
Executive summary
Board diversity work becomes more credible when the path from candidate readiness to opening, application, appointment, and impact reporting can be inspected.
Partner restraint
Partners should see what the program can prove: candidate records, city openings, appointment outcomes, and impact snapshots. Unsupported claims stay out until sources are approved.
Key findings
Evidence-backed findings
Impact needs a custody chain
Reporting is stronger when preparation, openings, and appointments are connected evidence.
Partner confidence depends on restraint
The interface avoids unsupported impact language and shows pending data explicitly.
Snapshots trace to records
Impact snapshots are credible when traced to city, board, opening, application, and appointment records.
Claims
Source-mapped claims
Impact needs a custody chain.
Reporting is stronger when candidate preparation, city openings, and appointment outcomes are treated as connected evidence.
Partner confidence depends on restraint.
The interface should avoid unsupported impact language and show what data is present or pending.
Snapshots should point back to records.
Impact snapshots are credible when they can be traced to city, board, opening, application, and appointment records.