Engagement Survey Insights & Actions

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Engagement Problem Frame (key dimensions, scores, and priority problem areas) and the Engagement Survey Results with team-level breakdowns.

TASK
Compare engagement signals across teams and themes to identify where patterns cluster, diverge, or intensify. Produce a Cross-Team Comparison Matrix that highlights which teams share common engagement challenges and which face unique issues.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use the following markdown structure:

## Cross-Team Comparison Matrix

### Team-by-Dimension Heatmap
| Team | [Dimension 1] | [Dimension 2] | [Dimension 3] | Overall |
|------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------|
| [Team A] | [High / Medium / Low] | ... | ... | [score] |

### Clustered Patterns
For each pattern appearing across multiple teams:
- **Pattern:** [description]
- **Affected Teams:** [list]
- **Strength:** [Strong / Moderate / Emerging]

### Unique Team Issues
For any team with a signal that does not appear elsewhere:
- **Team:** [identifier]
- **Issue:** [description]
- **Evidence:** [data points]

CONSTRAINTS
Do not rank teams or create league tables that could be used punitively. Do not speculate on causes — report the data patterns only. Do not include individual employee responses or identifiable free-text comments.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Cross-Team Comparison Matrix (engagement patterns across teams) and the Exit Theme Summary from HR15 (validated exit interview themes with sentiment and categories).

TASK
Cross-reference the engagement survey patterns with the exit interview themes to identify where both data sources confirm the same underlying issue. Flag convergent signals where engagement dips align with exit reasons, and note divergent signals where one source contradicts the other. Produce a Validated Signal Map.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use the following markdown structure:

## Validated Signal Map

### Convergent Signals
| # | Engagement Pattern | Exit Theme | Alignment Strength | Implication |
|---|-------------------|------------|-------------------|-------------|
| 1 | [pattern from survey] | [theme from exits] | [Strong / Moderate] | [one sentence] |

### Divergent Signals
| # | Source | Signal | Contradiction | Notes |
|---|--------|--------|---------------|-------|
| 1 | [Survey / Exit] | [signal] | [what contradicts it] | [context] |

### Signal Priority Ranking
Rank the top signals by combined evidence weight:
1. [Signal] — supported by [survey evidence] and [exit evidence]

CONSTRAINTS
Do not fabricate alignment between unrelated survey dimensions and exit themes. Only flag convergence where both data sources reference the same underlying issue. Do not assign causation — note correlation only.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Validated Signal Map (convergent and divergent engagement signals cross-referenced with exit themes) and Organisational Benchmark Data (industry or historical engagement benchmarks).

TASK
For each high-priority signal in the Validated Signal Map, generate one to three targeted improvement actions. Prioritise actions by expected impact and feasibility. Produce a Prioritised Improvement Plan that your organisation's HR team can execute.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use the following markdown structure:

## Prioritised Improvement Plan

### Recommended Actions
| # | Signal Addressed | Action | Owner Type | Priority | Timeframe | Expected Impact |
|---|-----------------|--------|-----------|----------|-----------|----------------|
| 1 | [signal] | [specific action] | [HR / Manager / Leadership] | [High / Medium / Low] | [Immediate / Short-term / Long-term] | [one sentence] |

### Implementation Notes
For each high-priority action:
- **Action:** [name]
- **Rationale:** [why this addresses the signal]
- **Success Measure:** [how to know it worked]
- **Dependencies:** [what must be in place first]

### Actions Not Recommended
List signals where no action is warranted, with rationale for exclusion.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not recommend actions that cannot be tracked or measured. Do not propose organisation-wide initiatives for signals affecting only one team. Do not reference specific tools, vendors, or proprietary programmes. Every recommendation must link directly to a validated signal.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Prioritised Improvement Plan (recommended actions with owners and timeframes) and the Validated Signal Map (convergent engagement and exit signals ranked by priority).

TASK
Distil the highest-risk engagement signals into an Engagement Risk Flags document formatted for downstream use by employee relations and governance workflows. Each flag must name the risk, cite the supporting evidence, state the recommended response, and assign an urgency level.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use the following markdown structure:

## Engagement Risk Flags

### Risk Flag Summary
| # | Risk Flag | Urgency | Affected Scope | Evidence Sources | Recommended Response |
|---|-----------|---------|---------------|-----------------|---------------------|
| 1 | [risk label] | [Critical / High / Medium] | [team or population] | [survey and exit data references] | [one sentence action] |

### Detailed Risk Narratives
For each critical or high-urgency flag:
- **Flag:** [label]
- **Evidence:** [specific data points from survey and exit themes]
- **Current Trajectory:** [Improving / Stable / Declining]
- **Recommended Owner:** [HR / Manager / Leadership]
- **Escalation Trigger:** [condition that would raise urgency]

CONSTRAINTS
Do not flag risks without evidence from at least one validated source. Do not include low-severity signals that do not warrant downstream attention. Do not reference specific employees, managers, or organisation names.