Skip to content
Try an example
Early preview Nothing here is released yet. Pages marked Garden are drafts that no person has reviewed. How review works

Outcome Harvesting for strategic learning

← Explore patterns and cases

Reference eligibility: eligible — Institutional or method-author operating guidance documents this procedure; no tool-seller customer-success claim is admitted.

This is a retained audit record, not an eligible reference example. Inspect source eligibility.

leadership/strategy / comm-22

Outcome Harvesting for strategic learning

Evaluators work backwards from observed changes to investigate plausible program contributions.

documented-procedure · conventional-workflow · Source account, not a validated implementation

What goes in

  • Documents
  • Reported changes
  • Informant accounts

What comes out

  • Substantiated outcome descriptions
  • Evidence-based answers

Documented sequence

Order described in the source account; not a sequence between pattern families.

  1. Agree intended uses and questions
  2. Review documents and draft outcome descriptions
  3. Engage knowledgeable informants to correct and extend descriptions
  4. Independently substantiate selected outcomes
  5. Classify and interpret the evidence
  6. Discuss use with intended users

Checks described

  • Observable changes
  • Independent knowledgeable sources
  • Open questions beyond planned outcomes

What changes with context

  • Participatory and context-adapted method; contribution is investigated rather than assumed
  • Emergent and unintended outcomes are included
  • Sampling varies with the harvest

Shared patterns · provisional interpretation

  • Assemble grounded evidence

    Distributed source material → traceable retrieval, synthesis, or a decision-ready evidence packet

  • Reconcile claims and records

    Claim or record plus reference evidence → checked agreement, discrepancies, and a substantiated correction or certification

Fit: mapped. Exploratory analyst coding of collected source summaries; not independently tested

Could this transfer?

Hypothetical: an ecosystem partnership team could investigate unexpected changes in partner behavior and assess its own plausible contribution.

Limit: This is not experimental causal identification; competing explanations must remain visible.

Evidence limits and unknowns

Summary through context_constraints paraphrase source-backed mechanics. structural_motifs, candidate_midlevel_pattern, transfer_example_explicitly_hypothetical and transfer_limit are analyst interpretations, not tested findings.

  • Application-specific sampling
  • Strength of causal inference in a particular harvest

Source eligibility and effectiveness

Allowed use: process reference with explicit limits . Source eligibility is not proof of effectiveness, safety or transferability.

Review attribution: AI-assisted source review · 2026-10-18T03:26:44.526806+00:00.

  • Eligibility, where granted, permits a process reference only; it is not proof of usefulness, causal effectiveness, safety, or transferability.
  • No workflow software executed, no video playback independently observed, and no outcomes independently measured by this audit.
  • Application-specific sampling
  • Strength of causal inference in a particular harvest
  • This is not experimental causal identification; competing explanations must remain visible.

Source and dates

Outcome harvesting ↗ · Method-developer-contributed evaluation guide

Published
Unknown
Updated
Unknown
Checked (UTC)
2026-10-18T03:01:00Z

Direct original-page opens returned an internal retrieval error in this pass; search returned original-page text but no page publication/update label. Dates 2012 and 2013 describe a cited external guide, not this page. Date remains unavailable.

unavailable retrieval limited · Date evidence ↗

Permanent case link · Download source records