Objectives, metric definitions and fictional counting tests
Define objectives, populations, counting rules, evidence and judgment conditions, then compare two independent counts before approval.
A metric record linking objectives to evidence-collection approval and fictional test results
- File formats
- English XLSX · CSV (UTF-8)
- Version
- 2.0
- Editorial review
- 31 Oct 2026
- Use this for
- Use after agreeing objectives and before registration, on-site or follow-up data collection.
When to use it
Use after agreeing objectives and before registration, on-site or follow-up data collection.
Metric names alone do not define counting units or target attainment. Do not convert missing records or non-response to zero; document agreed defer-judgment conditions.
Start with the guide: Agree counting rules before naming metricsFill in the template step by step
When to use it
Before finalising metric definitions and assigning collection tools and responsibilities.
What to have ready
- Objectives, audience, decisions and result deadlines
- Actual registration, on-site and follow-up fields and access permissions
- Previous definitions, target basis and privacy requirements
Record the decision supported and the objective, population and action or verified state.
Define unit, numerator/denominator, duplicate key, exclusions, unknown treatment, source and cutoff.
Verify data availability and have two people independently count fictional records, logging discrepancies and retests.
Have the approver review definitions, target evidence, data availability and tests before handing over the final collection version.
Worked example
Fictional example, not an actual event or supplier record
Eight columns · scroll horizontally to view the complete worked example.
| Metric ID, decision and required result time | Objective, population and action/state to verify | Unit, numerator/denominator and inclusion/exclusion | Duplicate key and unknown/deferral treatment | Source, cutoff and collection/review owners | Previous value, comparability, target and basis | Fictional records, two counts and retest | Approval, definition version and open owner/deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MET-01 / Retain the next meeting programme? / seven days after event19:00 | Confirm follow-up appointment date/time for participating companies / distinct from recruitment | Company count / unique companies with confirmed appointments / A,B,C only, not number of meetings | Deduplicate company IDs / non-response remains unknown / this assumed case defers judgment if unknown | Fictional follow-up F1 / seven days after event18:00 KST / R01 collects, R02 reviews | No baseline / illustrative target2, not yet agreed with organiser / not an industry benchmark | A confirmation entered twice, B unknown, C no appointment / both counters get confirmed1, unknown1, no appointment1 / defer | Draft M1 / P01 approval pending / R01 proposes B check route and deadline by11-08 |
| MET-02 / Allocate next-session seats / next day12:00 | Unique actual S1 participants / operations staff excluded | People / unique registration ID / S1 entry period only; re-entry not a new person | Exclude repeated A01 / unidentified records require separate review and defer final total | Fictional gate G1 / through session end / O01 and reviewer R02 | Previous45 reference only until definitions match / proposed70 is internal draft DEC2 | Four trial rows A01,A01 re-entry,A02,A03 / both count unique3 versus passages4 / not an actual target result | M2 under review / P01 approves target basis and missing-ID treatment by11-09 |
| MET-03 / Review satisfaction responses / three days after event17:00 | Positive response among survey respondents / not all attendees’ satisfaction | Rate / valid4–5 out of5 responses divided by all valid responses / report non-response separately | Review duplicate anonymous tokens / record reasons for excluding blanks / do not score non-response zero | Fictional survey S3 / closes two days after event18:00, reviewed next day / R01 and R02 | No baseline / illustrative80% internal proposal pending evidence approval / record comparable period/population | Trial scores5,4,2 plus blank / both get valid3, positive2, 2/3=66.7%; blank1 separate / not performance | Draft M3 / P01 approves target and deferral rule by11-09; distribute final version only |
Blank template preview
This preview shows a few rows. The downloaded file contains 24 prepared rows.
Eight columns · scroll horizontally to view the complete blank worksheet.
| Metric ID, decision and required result time | Objective, population and action/state to verify | Unit, numerator/denominator and inclusion/exclusion | Duplicate key and unknown/deferral treatment | Source, cutoff and collection/review owners | Previous value, comparability, target and basis | Fictional records, two counts and retest | Approval, definition version and open owner/deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Sources used to develop this template
EVENTODIT created this template using the working methods described in the public sources below. It is not an official form and has not been reviewed or approved by those organisations.
- US CDC · Step 3: Focus the Evaluation Questions and Design, 18 August 2024
The record adapts evaluation questions, intended use, evidence quality, counting definitions and tool pilots into event metric definitions and fictional tests. It does not extend OECD introduction/abstract coverage into mandatory procedures.
- US CDC · Step 4: Gather Credible Evidence, 18 August 2024
The record adapts evaluation questions, intended use, evidence quality, counting definitions and tool pilots into event metric definitions and fictional tests. It does not extend OECD introduction/abstract coverage into mandatory procedures.