Performance Record: POPUP-2026-02
Performance Record: metrics tracker, EQS, Tier 1/2/3 — pre-publication initialized.
Performance Record: POPUP-2026-02
Beyond Investigation: Why Fair Processes Still Fail and What Relational Accountability Looks Like Submitted: [DATE — to be filled on submission] Published: [DATE — to be filled on publication] Primary venue: Canadian HR Reporter or OHS Canada (TBD) Last Updated: 2026-03-24 — pre-submission initialization
This record is initialized pre-submission with structural data. Fill metrics at 30, 60, and 90 days post-publication. Use to feed the Q2 2026 Quarterly Review.
Publication Log
| Artifact | URL | Published | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary article (trade publication) | [URL — fill on publication] | [DATE] | Canadian HR Reporter / OHS Canada |
| ProActive Blog adaptation | [URL — fill if adapted] | [DATE] | ProActive Blog |
| LinkedIn post 1 — "The process that made things worse" | [URL] | [DATE] | |
| LinkedIn post 2 — "Procedural fairness vs. procedural justice" | [URL] | [DATE] | |
| LinkedIn post 3 — "Relational accountability: more accountable" | [URL] | [DATE] | |
| Newsletter mention | Issue #2 | [DATE] | Newsletter |
Tier 1 — Reach
| Metric | 30d | 60d | 90d | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LinkedIn post 1 impressions | ||||
| LinkedIn post 2 impressions | ||||
| LinkedIn post 3 impressions | ||||
| Blog page views (if adapted) | No analytics yet — Phase 2 gap | |||
| Newsletter open rate | Newsletter platform TBD | |||
| Article shares (LinkedIn) |
Tier 2 — Engagement
LinkedIn Engagement Quality Score (EQS)
EQS canonical formula: see knowledge-base/publishing-intelligence/PERFORMANCE_TRACKER.md
| Metric | Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saves | Highest-weight signal (×5) | |||
| Comments ≥15 words | Substantive engagement (×2.5) | |||
| Comments <15 words | ||||
| Reactions | ||||
| Reposts with commentary | ||||
| EQS | — | — | — | Calculate per PERFORMANCE_TRACKER.md formula |
Q2 Baseline Context
POPUP-2026-01 is the Q2 EQS baseline for healthcare content. This piece targets a different audience (lawyers, HR leaders, executives) — compare within-audience-tier, not against healthcare baseline.
Notable Comments
This is the intellectual flagship piece. Expect substantive engagement from lawyers and senior HR leaders. Track vocabulary used — this is audience intelligence about whether "relational accountability" is landing.
| Date | Platform | Name/Handle | Comment Summary | Audience Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Hypothesized comment themes: - HR leaders recognizing the "investigation done right, still made things worse" scenario - Employment lawyers commenting on the Baker/Tyler distinction (legal anchoring is intentional for this audience) - Skeptics of restorative approaches — either pushing back on or converting to "relational accountability" framing - OH&S professionals recognizing the psychosocial harm register argument
The term "relational accountability" is on test throughout this piece. Track whether commenters adopt it, reframe it, or push back on it — this is the anchor concept and its reception is a strategic signal.
Tier 3 — Business Impact
| Signal | Date | Contact | Context | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inquiry mentioning this piece | ||||
| Speaking invitation referencing this piece | ||||
| Referral citing this piece | ||||
| Proposal where this piece was used |
Hypothesis: This is the piece most likely to generate inquiry from employment lawyers. The Baker/Tyler legal anchoring is intentional — lawyers will recognize it and be curious about ProActive's practice application. First Tier 3 signal: employment lawyer who read the article and forwards it to an HR client with a problem investigation.
Audience Intelligence
Target audience: HR leaders, employment/labour lawyers, executives; secondary: OH&S professionals Who actually engaged: [Fill at 30d] Unexpected audience: [Fill at 30d — monitor for union representatives, investigators, mediators]
Feedback Signals
Content Improvement Signal
Pre-populated based on known article gaps — update at 30d based on actual engagement
- [ ] "Relational accountability" as the anchor term needs Richard's confirmation before v2
- [ ] Target publication decision (Canadian HR Reporter vs. OHS Canada) affects voice calibration at the margins
- [ ] Freyd attribution is generous (per Locked Commitment) — confirm this reads correctly in trade pub context
Topic Follow-Up Signal
Pre-populated — update based on comment themes
- The three registers of harm framework deserves its own standalone explainer
- A "what relational accountability looks like in practice — a case study" follow-up would anchor the concept with evidence
- The Bill C-65 angle (investigation as Stage 3, not default) could be its own short piece for lawyers
Pattern Signal
Pattern used: PATTERN-PRACTITIONER-ARTICLE-v1 (at substantive end of register) Pattern fitness assessment: [Fill at 30d post-publication] → Feed to Pattern Retrospectives at Q2 Quarterly Review Note: This is the first use of PATTERN-PRACTITIONER-ARTICLE-v1 at the trade publication register. Compare against POPUP-2026-01 (blog register) to assess whether one pattern serves both or whether PATTERN-TRADE-ARTICLE-v1 is more appropriate for future pieces at this level.
90-Day Summary
Complete at 90-day mark (~July 2026).
Overall assessment: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW] Best-performing post: [Post 1 / 2 / 3] Primary audience observed: [who actually engaged] "Relational accountability" term reception: [Adopted / Reframed / Contested] Tier 3 signals: [count] Recommendation for Q3 Quarterly Review: [Deepen legal audience track / Expand procedural justice angle / Follow-up case study / Adjust register for trade pub vs. blog]
Distribution Brief Reference
→ /projects/POPUP-2026-02/DISTRIBUTION_BRIEF.md
WSD Reference
→ /projects/POPUP-2026-02/WSD.md (currently Stage 4 — awaiting Richard's review)