JOB FIT / SKILL REQUIREMENT — ONE TASK RECORD
Task and expected result:
Who confirms the requirement and quality criteria:
Specific capability required, not a personality adjective:
Evidence of what I can already do:
Observed difficulty and its location in the task:
Time, instructions, access and support in that attempt:
What remains unclear or untested:
One proposed learning or work-condition adjustment:
Person who can approve it; confirmation status:
Suitable practice setting, feedback and required checks:
Expected work outcome; comparison criteria:
Review point chosen for this task:
What actually happened; support actually received:
Other conditions that also changed:
What I learned / what this does not establish:
Core work I would or would not want under workable conditions:
Next question or agreed action:
This record produces no diagnostic, job-fit or competence score.

FICTIONAL WORKED COMPARISON
A useful next step may be suitable instruction, a worked example, supervised practice, a clearer brief or a work-condition adjustment. Choose the change that addresses the observed gap. Confirm it with the appropriate person, including time, support, feedback and the work you will compare afterwards.
Do not make an unapproved experiment out of required checks, customer commitments or duties. Use an appropriate learning setting and the established requirements of the actual task. This page does not establish that a reader is qualified to perform a particular activity independently.
The following example is fictional. It illustrates how evidence can become clearer without turning a short practice exercise into proof of job fit or professional competence.
Fictional example: one report, three distinct observations
Stage
Observed work and conditions
What can be said
First attempt
A new analyst drafts a summary. The reviewer says that important exceptions are missing; the brief does not identify how exceptions should be grouped.
There is a specific quality concern and an unclear criterion. A permanent ability verdict is premature.
Supported practice
The reviewer supplies an acceptable example, explains the grouping rule and checks one draft in a suitable practice setting.
The method and feedback are now more concrete. Instruction received is not itself proof of independent performance.
Next agreed task
With the same criteria, the analyst includes the required exception groups. A new data source still needs guidance.
The observed grouping step improved in this task. The new data source remains a separate learning question; overall fit is unresolved.
For a real comparison, name the criterion before reviewing the result. “The required exception groups are included” is more informative than “I feel better.” Keep independence and support level visible, and record any other change in the conditions.
One improvement does not isolate its cause. A clearer brief, teaching, extra time and helpful feedback may all have changed together. Record that honestly. An unsuccessful attempt can likewise leave several explanations open, including whether the support addressed the actual step.

SEVEN EXPLAINED CHECKS

1. A new task went badly before you received the method or an acceptable example. Does this establish a permanent skill deficit?
No. Clarify the requirement and suitable instruction before drawing that conclusion.
The observed difficulty is real, but the conditions and criteria remain incomplete. Record the task-specific learning question.

2. You can do a routine task to the required standard, but dislike it as the main duty of a future role. Is more technical training the only relevant next step?
No. Record the capability evidence and discuss the recurring core-work preference separately.
Being able to perform a task and wanting it to dominate a role are different questions. One dislike alone still does not settle every possible version of the role.

3. Two reviewers request incompatible outputs. Should you simply rate your skill lower?
No. Ask who can confirm compatible criteria.
An unclear standard cannot be resolved by a self-rating. The requirement needs clarification before the performance comparison is meaningful.

4. A training session is completed, but there is no observed application or feedback. May the record say independent competence is demonstrated?
No. Record instruction received and the next suitable work evidence still needed.
Participation, a supported attempt and independent performance are distinct evidence. The worksheet cannot certify professional competence.

5. Your report improves after coaching, a clearer brief and extra time all arrive together. Has coaching alone been proved to cause the improvement?
No. Record the improvement and all conditions that changed.
A useful work observation does not isolate a cause. The result can guide the next discussion without being treated as a controlled research experiment.

6. The promised reviewer was unavailable and the practice never happened. Does that prove you cannot learn the skill?
No. Record that the agreed support or attempt did not occur.
A missing learning opportunity is not evidence of failed learning. Ask whether another arrangement is feasible or consider the broader work options.

7. A career worksheet is unfinished while work is affecting your health or feels unsafe. Must you complete the comparison before seeking support?
No. Use appropriate support for the actual concern now.
This record supplies no waiting rule, diagnostic threshold or eligibility score. Work reflection and needed support can proceed separately.

Sources:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/demands.htm
https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/support.htm
https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/role.htm
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases
https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/overview.htm
Original reflection worksheet and fictional examples. No diagnosis, competence certification or assessed job-fit result.