Most disagreements about performance reports occur because of differing definitions. Two teams report the same statistic, but use the metric to mean different things. This leads to a report that is filled with negotiated ambiguity as opposed to a clear definition. The first page of our report gives a definition for each metric used.
The definitions should stay put, and then the writing will be fairly simple: what the target was, what happened, and the most likely reason for the difference between the two.
Credibility relies on whether a report would rather win an argument. It’s a breeze to craft a report that always attributes a miss to an external cause and a win to an internal cause, and it’s worth nothing. Readers develop a sense of calibration over time, and once they start disregarding your reports, they will disregard your winning streaks too.
For getting the causation right, performance writing is strong. It can spot all those process change-caused-a-drop or campaign-caused-an-uplift cases, as that is the causation writing pattern it is used to. The fact that it has no access to your data makes a confident causal statement the riskiest to retract.
Writers draft measurement definitions as a starting point for you or, in cases where you haven’t, define them. They then identify targets, actuals, and gaps for each, traced to a specific cause for each gap: increasing or decreasing headcount, seasonality, a change in pricing, or, in some cases, an honest admission that no one knows.
You will get the numbers, the definitions accompanying them, and a straightforward account of the explanations for the gaps. Where a result cannot be explained with the data available, the report states that and says what is needed to be instrumented in order to find the answer.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical performance report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
As detailed as the brief and the word count allow. Because you pay by the word rather than by tier, depth is a decision you make rather than a package you upgrade to. Tell the writer what the reader already knows and they will pitch it there.
Yes. Send the template, a previous example, or the structure you are required to use, and the writer works inside it. If a required section does not fit the material honestly, they will flag it rather than pad it out.
The writer includes the definitions in the first report, requests your approval, and continues with the rest of the report. It takes approximately an hour of your time to make this change, but the minor effort you put in to this particular report will mean that every later report will be comparable to this one.
Yes. Inform the writer on the level desired and he/she will do the rest: team, function or program level, all individual data assimilated. In case the report is likely to be read as part of a formal process, please emphasize this in the brief. The language will remain careful throughout.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Nothing overstated our position, so I’m very happy. I actually prefer that to pretty. Two lines in the emissions narrative needed counsel to amend to our regulatory filing. That’s standard, not really a problem. Four because it took a week longer.
Typically, the risk register that accompanies the feasibility study has generic entries. Ours had six risk items, each of which was linked to something in the documentation I provided, with one of them being something I had not even thought of.
The chair’s introduction and year-in-review section surpass all our internal drafts. Where it missed the mark: the writer did not draft when the finance numbers were pending. That resulted in a tight deadline for the final week. Other writers suggest using placeholder text to fill gaps.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees