FP&A Assessment:Operating Model Review
Eight findings, each confirmed by two blind peer reviews, on a finished seven-year three-statement model. Everything a script can detect is published in advance and scores nothing.
The cohort grades itself
Ruling on whether a finding is real needs somebody who read the same material, and the only people who did are the ones who sat the exam. So the people on this board are also the people who checked it.
Who is here
- NNicole Roberts69 reviews
- AAndy Nguyen16 reviews
- JJanita Grift8 reviews
- NNeil P.16 reviews
- TTodd Wagstaff16 reviews
- NNare Sedrakyan16 reviews
- BBabatunde Raimi16 reviews
- WWill Su16 reviews
- KKinjal Kothari16 reviews
- GGino Gadaleta20 reviews
- RRiley Hawes8 reviews
- JJuan Carlos Yumar Amundarain10 reviews
- EEnrique Bustamante10 reviews
- AAmanda Hall14 reviews
- JJigar Patel16 reviews
- KKritika Gupta14 reviews
- AAhmed Mustafa11 reviews
- TTafadzwa Nyamajiwa8 reviews
- CCarl Bacon26 reviews
- HHadi Salman16 reviews
- SShuntoria Reid29 reviews
- JJeremiah T. Iornenge16 reviews
- AAlexucia Thompson10 reviews
- CCORRINE JONES16 reviews
1 more person holds their position anonymously. The board carries its top 25 rows, so 525 people who sat this exam do not appear on it.
How the checking works
Every finding needs two independent verdicts, so a cohort that does not check does not get checked. Submitting puts findings in the queue and owes reviews to it, and an attempt that returns less than half of what it owes is left unranked. Precision and rarity are both computed from verdicts other people supplied, and a row ranked on donated labour is not a result.
Checkers never see who wrote what, and are never asked whether a finding is clever, interesting, or better than their own. The only question put to them is whether the thing described actually happens. When two checkers disagree, the finding counts for nobody in either direction.
