Start here
The free tool below runs entirely in this browser — no account, nothing stored or transmitted. Redact anything you would not want kept before you type it.
Open the companion tool →Why provenance beats argument
A review drafted from system data answers a question you did not ask: it summarizes what was recorded, not what you did. Records miss the work that happens outside the tool — the escalation you handled, the colleague you trained, the quarter you covered a vacancy — and a summary of an incomplete record reads like a judgment about you.
Asking for the basis is ordinary and hard to refuse. Three questions cover most of it: what information was used, who reviewed it before it reached me, and how do I request a correction. The reply also tells you whether a person actually read the work, which matters if the rating later feeds a pay decision, a level change, or a termination.
The protocol
- Save the review exactly as you received it, with the date. If it lives only in a portal, export or capture it before it changes.
- Split the document into three columns: factual claims you can check, opinions, and conclusions about pay, level, or future.
- List the work the record could not have seen, with dates and, where possible, a name who can confirm it.
- Ask in writing, calmly and specifically: what information was used to draft this, who reviewed it before it was given to me, and how do I request a correction?
- Ask for one concrete change — a corrected sentence, an added project, an amended rating — rather than a general reconsideration.
- Keep the reply. If the rating later supports a pay, promotion, or termination decision, that dated exchange is the record showing you asked.
What the tool does
Build a written response to a system-drafted performance review: what it says, what evidence you are asking for, what you dispute with dates, and what you want changed. It stores nothing and sends nothing.
Limit first: This is a documentation aid, not legal advice, and it does not determine whether a review was unfair or unlawful. Employment rules and review rights differ by country, state, contract, and union agreement.
Open the companion tool →One human next step
If a correction is refused and the rating affects pay, level, or continued employment, take it to HR in writing and ask what your employer's own review process requires. If you believe the rating reflects discrimination or retaliation, an employment lawyer or the EEOC (in the US) can explain your options; if it reflects monitoring you were never told about, a union representative or labor authority is usually the faster route.
Research log and safety checks
AI-assist path: not used for a verdict. The artifact is a dated request and the employer's reply; a generated summary of a review would be weaker evidence than the document itself and would hide what it inferred (§1.2 UIC-10). §6.9 disclosed: summarizing the review is exactly the capability the reader should not depend on here, because the provenance of the summary is the dispute. §6.10: not a frontier-pace topic — no company's safety commitments or capability claims are cited, and nothing in this entry takes a position on whether employers should use these tools.
§0.5 protection result: category is job-skill-disruption; crisis-adjacent: no; fear/urgency/scarcity toolkit used: no. The protective function is free and the paid feature is convenience only.