External

Measures whether the first minutes established why you asked for the meeting, what you hope to leave with, and why it matters to them. Not whether you had talking points.

1. 5

   In the first minutes you say why you asked for the time, what you hope to leave with, and why it matters to them specifically (their district, their portfolio, their coalition). You reference their prior position, last grant, or last conversation, so the homework is visible. Stakes and constraints are on the table (vote date, deadline, budget).

2. 4

   Purpose and ask are stated; the relevance to them is implied rather than said, or the homework is thin.

3. 3

   You give the background and let them find the point. Purpose emerges midway.

4. 2

   Opens with pleasantries, then your organization’s general update. No stated purpose.

5. 1

   You are unsure who they are, what they do, or what you want from them.

Evidence: CIPD 2023 (goal clarity r = .51 to .54); Congressional Management Foundation 2017 (staff value a specific ask with stated reasons); Hastings and Meyer 2020 (lead with context) for the language only. All sources

Measures whether the ask and the reasoning fit in a few sentences, and whether you stop when they signal they have it.

1. 5

   Headline first. Your organization’s position fits in one sentence and the ask in another. Your turns are shorter than theirs. Every acronym is expanded the first time. When they signal understanding (“right, we’ve seen that”) you stop.

2. 4

   Mostly tight. One explanation runs a beat long or one acronym slips through; the message survives.

3. 3

   You lead with background and get to the point after several minutes. You re-explain points they have already accepted.

4. 2

   Monologue-heavy. They take notes or go quiet rather than engage. Several points stack before they can respond.

5. 1

   They ask you to clarify what you are asking, or the meeting ends without the ask being said plainly.

Evidence: CIPD 2023 (focused communication; avoid monologues); Oppenheimer 2006 (needless complexity lowers judged competence); Hinds 1999. All sources

Measures whether you restated what each side will do, by when, and confirmed it back.

1. 5

   In the last minutes you restate what you will send and when (“one-pager by Friday, the intro to X next week”), what you understood they would do, and you check it (“so you’ll raise it with the chair before the hearing, is that right?”). The next touchpoint is set. One named person from your organization owns the follow-up.

2. 4

   Your follow-ups have dates; theirs are understood but not confirmed back, or the next touchpoint is “we’ll be in touch.”

3. 3

   Follow-ups are mentioned but without dates or a named owner on your organization’s side.

4. 2

   “Thanks so much, let’s stay in touch.” No specific follow-up from either side.

5. 1

   You leave with a task you did not notice you took on, or nobody could say what happens next.

Evidence: Gollwitzer and Sheeran 2006 (d = .65); Härgestam et al. 2013 (closed-loop confirmation); Congressional Management Foundation 2017 (sustained follow-up beats one-off pressure). All sources

Measures whether you spoke in their frame, made impact concrete for their constituents or portfolio, and adjusted when they signaled confusion. Not whether you were right.

1. 5

   Every specialist term (ESA, LEA, charter cap, per-pupil formula) is translated or skipped. You use their words back to them. Abstract policy is made concrete with one local number, one named school, or one family. When they ask a clarifying question you answer in a sentence and check (“does that match what you’re seeing in your district?”). You change depth based on their responses.

2. 4

   Mostly in their frame. One or two terms go unexpanded, or the local impact is mentioned but stays generic.

3. 3

   You explain in your organization’s internal language. They ask what a term means, or you re-explain at length. Impact is stated only as national numbers.

4. 2

   They look lost or redirect to their own topic, and you continue at the same depth.

5. 1

   The counterpart misunderstands your organization’s position and you do not catch it.

Evidence: Hinds 1999 (experts misjudge what novices need and resist correcting for it); Oppenheimer 2006; Congressional Management Foundation 2017 (91% of staff find local-impact information helpful; 9% say advocates usually bring it). All sources

Measures observable signals of ability, benevolence, and integrity, and whether you left one specific ask they can act on.

1. 5

   Ability: you answer their questions directly, or say “I’ll confirm that by Thursday” rather than guess. Benevolence: you ask about their constraints (timing, opposition, what they need to say yes) and shape the ask around what you hear. Integrity: you reference a commitment you kept, or say plainly what your organization cannot do. The ask is one specific thing (cosponsor SB 12, a 20-minute meeting with the chair, a decision by a date), sized to what they can plausibly do, with a follow-up they can hold you to.

2. 4

   One specific ask. Trust behaviors mostly present; one is missing (usually no question about their constraints).

3. 3

   The ask is general (“we’d love your support”). You present more than you listen. Their constraints go unasked.

4. 2

   Several asks, or none. You bluff an answer. Their concerns are acknowledged and then brushed past.

5. 1

   You overpromise, contradict something your organization said before, or leave them unsure what you wanted.

Evidence: Mayer, Davis and Schoorman 1995 (trust rests on perceived ability, benevolence, integrity); Congressional Management Foundation 2017 (specific asks with stated reasons; non-confrontational, sustained contact); Baumgartner et al. 2009 (most lobbying fails and resources explain little; a realistic ask and next step matter more than polish); Itzchakov et al. 2018 (listening changes what the other side is able to tell you). All sources

How the total is built

Weighted = raw × weight × 20, with the weight as a decimal (a raw 5 at 20% contributes 20 points).

What is never scored

• Factual accuracy of policy claims. Score whether claims were translated and whether uncertainty was flagged, never whether they were correct.
• Whether the counterpart agreed or committed. That outcome is theirs.
• The merits of your organization’s position or strategy.
• Small talk and relationship time. In this type it is part of the work; count it against the score only if the ask never gets made.
• The counterpart’s manner, preparation, or civility.
• Transcript artifacts and connection drops.