Find the focus, make your work clear.

Find a method for your next update. Make the facts, judgments and next steps clear.

What belongs in a progress update?

The situation

Fictional scenario

We held several meetings and delivered the checklist. Isn’t saying we’re making progress enough?

Where are we against the agreement? If there is a gap, what happens next?

I’ll start with actual delivery, then distinguish gaps, possible causes and proposed action.

What is getting in the way

Activity alone does not establish progress. Connect delivery, gaps, possible causes and action so the listener knows the current state and where coordination is needed.

Method and tool

Four parts of a progress update

Compare delivery with the agreement before explaining gaps. Causes need evidence; actions need dependencies and confirmation status.

Four parts of a progress update

01
State progress
Start with this period's deliverables, comparison baseline and checkpoint. Completing tasks and meeting a business target are different claims.
02
Identify the issue
Start with an observed gap and its relevance to the goal. If no issue has been found, state the review scope and what you will monitor; do not invent one.
03
Examine the cause
Separate facts, causal hypotheses and checks. A before-and-after change alone does not establish causation; specify how to test the explanation.
04
Propose the response
Make the proposal discussable: actions, ownership and review criteria. If a solution is not ready, report what you have tried and the next check. A proposal is not approval.

Do not invent problems; possible causes still need verification.

Apply it to your own work

Copy the prompt and add your material to prepare a draft you can adapt.

View prompt

Act as a workplace communication assistant. Help me use “Four parts of a progress update” to organize the material below.

Use these checks:
1. State progress: Start with this period's deliverables, comparison baseline and checkpoint. Completing tasks and meeting a business target are different claims.
2. Identify the issue: Start with an observed gap and its relevance to the goal. If no issue has been found, state the review scope and what you will monitor; do not invent one.
3. Examine the cause: Separate facts, causal hypotheses and checks. A before-and-after change alone does not establish causation; specify how to test the explanation.
4. Propose the response: Make the proposal discussable: actions, ownership and review criteria. If a solution is not ready, report what you have tried and the next check. A proposal is not approval.

Return a concise update organized by these points, followed by up to three priority questions. Keep confirmed facts, interpretations, proposals and approvals separate. Mark missing information “To confirm”. Do not invent figures, causes, dates, owners or agreement. Keep the units, periods, denominators and uncertainty in my material. Do not treat the fictional example as my facts.

My material:
[Paste the context, evidence, constraints and response needed, with sensitive information removed.]