We had a discussion at one of my Peer Review sessions last week about the impact of individual file scores on the the final result. One contention was that a couple of bad scores can result in a bad overall outcome. Whilst we have witnessed this leading to Threshold Competent results (especially where Competent + was the desired result) we have not experienced the same with, say, Below Competence findings (of which we were notified of two last week).
This took place in a week in which some hand annotated notes were returned (accidentally) with the firms files. These involve a number being placed alongside each file. There are 6 - 1s, 5 - 2s, 6 - 3s and 3 - 4s we guess they represent individual file scoring ranging from 1 Excellent to 4 Below Competence.
Anyone like to guess the overall rating?
Will put up the answer later.
ANSWER
They got 2, Competent Plus
Not sure why there would be 20 files scored, a PR should only do the first 15. But, on any combination of those figures, even taking the most generous scoring, it baffles me how the firm could have scored c+, if I had been peer reviewing it, other things being equal, it would have got TC.
I tend to agree, however I can't find another explanation for these annotations. A result in today indicates that 16 files were audited not the usual 15.