07 — FACILITATOR REVIEW METHODOLOGY: TPC Post-Momentum-Monday Kit
The facilitator review (Output 3) is the most distinctive artifact this kit produces. This file is the methodology behind it. Read this when producing Output 3.
What the facilitator review is for
The facilitator review is Kathryn's private post-session debrief comparing what was planned (the facilitation guide) to what actually happened (the transcript). It's not a recap. It's a calibration tool.
Its purpose:
- Make deviations visible. When Kathryn departs from the facilitation guide, the review names the departure, the trade-off, and the recovery.
- Surface dominance patterns. Airtime imbalance, single-voice anchoring, members who went silent — patterns that don't show up in a topic-level recap.
- Calibrate next session. Specific actions for the next Monday based on what this Monday revealed.
- Feed lessons-learned. When a deviation is reusable (either as a "do this again" pattern or a "don't do this again" warning), it gets promoted to a lessons-learned entry.
It's also a tool for facilitator self-honesty. Kathryn writes things in this file she would not write in any other artifact.
Why this gets its own file in the kit
In kit-post-session-production (1:1 advisory), there's no equivalent. The advisor reviews the transcript and the email, but there's no "facilitator-only review of how the session ran." For 1:1 advisory, the email serves both functions implicitly.
For TPC, that doesn't work. Group facilitation has more moving parts than 1:1 advisory. The facilitation guide pre-specifies session flow, watch-fors, member-by-member airtime expectations. The chance of departure is higher; the cost of a silent departure is higher (next session is built on the wrong assumptions). So the kit needs an explicit step that compares plan vs. actual.
Structure of the review
Every facilitator review has these sections, in this order:
Section 1 — "Did the session do its job?"
Open with the facilitation guide's "what success looks like" criteria. Then assess: did the session meet them?
Four possible outcomes:
| Outcome | What it means |
|---|---|
| Yes — per plan | Session ran as designed, success criteria met. Rare. |
| Yes — different path | Session deviated but met the success criteria via a different route. Common when convergence happens early or a real-time build offer reshapes the session. |
| Partial | Some criteria met, others not. Most common outcome. |
| No | Session failed to meet its job. Rare and important — this is when lessons-learned is most likely to fire. |
Name the outcome explicitly. Don't soften it.
Section 2 — "Where you held the plan"
Bullet list of what ran per the guide:
- Open and frame
- Round 1 / Round 2 anchor questions
- Watch-fors that fired correctly
- Capture sheet usage
- Close
If a section ran with minor variation, note it here. Major deviation goes to Section 3.
Section 3 — "Where you broke from the plan"
For each major deviation, structure:
### [Deviation name — e.g., "Skipped Round 2 — Avoided Conversation"]
[1-paragraph what happened]
**Cost:** [What was lost — data not produced, signal not captured, member voice not heard]
**Benefit:** [What was gained — convergence, build commitment, momentum]
**The honest question:** [Self-question Kathryn should sit with — was the move strategic or convenient?]This is the section that does the most work. Be specific.
Section 4 — "Airtime and dominance patterns"
Rough estimates by member. Don't try to be precise — order of magnitude is enough. Pattern-level observations:
- Who anchored?
- Who was quiet?
- Did watch-fors from member files fire correctly?
- Any silence-stretch worth noting?
Section 5 — "What landed in the room" / "What didn't land"
Two short sub-sections. Concrete moments only — frames, moves, in-room decisions.
Section 6 — "Single biggest indicator the session worked"
Pull the metric from the facilitation guide (e.g., 4-27's was: "at least one member says something in the second round that surprises you"). Did it fire? With what specifics?
Section 7 — "Calibration for next [session]"
Numbered list of specific actions for the next Monday. Tied to what this session revealed:
- Open with X
- Bring Y
- Pull Z in by name first
- Pre-empt the W question
- Watch your own M
Section 8 — "What this session is teaching about TPC as a live lab"
Pattern-level only. What's the broader learning about TPC's design, the cohort dynamic, the facilitator's evolving role?
This section is the bridge to lessons-learned. If the pattern is broad enough to apply to Practice Builders mastermind, it's likely a lesson worth promoting.
Voice rules for the facilitator review
- Candid. No sanitizing. Write what you'd say to a trusted peer who already knows the room.
- First person, present-tense honest. "I read the room and pivoted" not "Kathryn pivoted."
- Self-questions are part of the form. End at least one deviation analysis with a question Kathryn should sit with — not a conclusion.
- No coaching language about Kathryn herself. Don't write motivational lines. The review's job is to surface signal, not affirm.
- Specifics, not generalities. "Linda's airtime matched Rob's" not "the airtime was uneven."
- Trade-offs, not verdicts. "The pivot worked here. Whether it always will is a separate question."
When the facilitator review feeds lessons-learned
A deviation gets promoted to a lesson when it has:
- Reusability — the pattern is likely to recur in future sessions or future cohorts
- Decision-actionability — there's a clear "next time, do X" or "next time, don't do Y"
- Practice Builders relevance — the pattern would inform the next mastermind cohort's design
If all three are true, produce Output 7 (lessons-learned entry).
If only some are true, the insight stays in the facilitator review only. Not every deviation is a lesson.
What the facilitator review does NOT do
- Does not recap topics (that's the personal recap)
- Does not list action items (those are in personal recap and JSON)
- Does not reflect what was said (that's everywhere else)
- Does not make decisions about future sessions (that's the planning doc)
- Does not get shared with anyone (Kathryn-only — full stop)
Failure modes specific to the facilitator review
| Failure | What Happens | How to Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Review reads like a recap | Content drifts to topics, not facilitation | Force every paragraph back to "what did Kathryn do, why, what was the trade-off" |
| Review sanitizes for an external audience | Honesty drops; calibration value drops | Re-read with the question: would I write this differently if I knew someone else was reading? If yes, rewrite. |
| Review skips deviations to be tactful | Pattern not named; recurs unfixed | Force at least one "where you broke from the plan" entry per session, even if minor |
| Calibration section is generic | Doesn't change next session | Each calibration item must reference something specific from this session, not generic facilitation advice |
| Self-questions become rhetorical | Loses the calibration function | A real self-question is one Kathryn doesn't yet know the answer to. If it's rhetorical, replace it. |
Reference run
The 4-27 facilitator review is the canonical example of this output:
cyp/tpc/sessions/tpc-momentum-monday-2026-04-27-facilitator-review.md
Study how it handles:
- The "session did its job — different path" outcome
- A major deviation (skipped Round 2) with full trade-off analysis
- A self-question Kathryn was meant to sit with ("Did you skip because of momentum or because you didn't want to slow it?")
- The calibration section's specificity
- The "TPC as a live lab" closing reflection