Mentor Ten People Toward a Real Goal

Proof required

Submit your intake process — the actual questions or template you use when starting with a new mentee — and your tracking system (a screenshot or description of how you are tracking multiple mentees' progress simultaneously). Submit the specific goal each of your first 3 mentees defined, in their own words. Write 150 words on how you found these first 3 people and why they agreed to be mentored by you specifically.

What gets checked

• Each of the 3 mentees' goals is specific and individually defined — not three people all given the same generic goal template, which would suggest the mentor is not actually listening to each person's real situation
• The tracking system is real and would genuinely scale to 10 people — a system that only works for remembering 2–3 people from memory will not hold up later in this outcome
• The account of why these 3 people agreed to be mentored is specific and credible, not a vague 'they wanted help'

Common mistakes

• Skipping the structured intake and just having casual conversations with friends, which makes it hard to later prove individualised, ongoing guidance rather than just being a supportive friend — which is valuable, but is not what this outcome tests
• Defining goals so vaguely that progress becomes impossible to assess later — a goal must be specific enough that you and the mentee would agree, weeks later, on whether real progress happened

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Read the 3 goals submitted. Are they genuinely different from each other and specific to each person, or do they read like the same template filled in three times?
• Ask the submitter: 'How will you and this mentee both know, in 3 months, whether real progress happened?' If they cannot answer specifically for each mentee, the goal was not defined precisely enough.
• Check the tracking system for genuine scalability — would it actually work at 10 people, or is it clearly designed for remembering just 2–3 people informally?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

For each of your 5 mentees, submit: their goal from intake, evidence of at least 2 distinct guidance touchpoints (dates and a brief description of what was discussed or advised in each), and a one-sentence progress note as of now. Write 200 words on which mentee relationship has been hardest to sustain and why.

What gets checked

• All 5 mentees show at least 2 genuinely distinct touchpoints — not one conversation logged twice or a single long conversation artificially split into two entries
• The guidance described in each touchpoint is specific to that mentee's stated goal, not generic advice that could apply to any of the 10 people interchangeably
• The hardest-relationship reflection names a real, specific person (anonymised) and a real difficulty — schedule conflicts, the mentee losing motivation, a mismatch between what kind of help they wanted versus what was offered

Common mistakes

• Logging the same generic check-in message sent to all 5 mentees as 5 separate touchpoints — this technically satisfies a touchpoint count but fails the individualised-guidance requirement entirely
• Letting one or two mentees go quiet without noticing or following up while focusing attention only on the easiest, most responsive relationships — uneven attention at this stage often predicts the same pattern getting worse at 10 mentees

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Spot-check 2 of the 5 mentees' touchpoint descriptions — do they reference that specific person's stated goal, or could the description be copy-pasted across any mentee without anyone noticing?
• Ask: 'Which mentee have you spoken to least recently, and why?' A mentor who can answer this precisely is tracking attention deliberately. A mentor who has to think hard or guess may be letting some relationships drift unnoticed.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit a progress table or document covering all current mentees — aim for 8–10 by this point — with goal, current status, and specific evidence of progress (or honest acknowledgment of no progress) per person. For at least 2 mentees showing little or no progress, describe what you have tried to do differently as a result. Write 200 words on what you have learned about your own mentoring style from seeing it applied across multiple different people simultaneously.

What gets checked

• Progress evidence is concrete per mentee — a specific action taken, skill demonstrated, or measurable change — not a vague 'doing well' or 'making progress' with no substantiation
• Stalled mentees are honestly identified as stalled, not quietly omitted from the table or reframed as succeeding to avoid an uncomfortable accounting
• The adjustment described for stalled mentees is genuinely different from the original approach, not the same advice repeated more insistently

Common mistakes

• Reporting uniform positive progress across all mentees, which is statistically implausible at this scale and suggests either dishonest reporting or progress criteria too loose to ever show failure
• Identifying stalled mentees honestly but then not actually changing approach for them — diagnosing the problem without doing anything different is not the same as adapting

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check whether the progress table shows realistic variation — some mentees ahead, some stalled, some in between. A table showing uniform success across 8–10 people is a strong signal worth probing with follow-up questions.
• For the 2 stalled mentees discussed, ask: 'What specifically are you doing now that is different from before?' A genuinely adapted approach should be describable in concrete terms, not restated good intentions.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit confirmation of 10 active mentees with at least one touchpoint each since Milestone 3's assessment. If any of the original mentees dropped off, describe honestly what happened and whether or how you replaced them. Write 200 words on the logistics of sustaining 10 simultaneous mentoring relationships — what system finally worked, and what almost broke under the load.

What gets checked

• All 10 mentees show genuine continued engagement since the midpoint, not a roster that technically lists 10 names while some have actually gone silent for weeks
• Any dropped mentees are honestly reported with a real explanation, not silently swapped out without acknowledgment
• The logistics reflection is specific about what actually broke or nearly broke under the load of 10 simultaneous relationships — a reflection claiming everything scaled smoothly with no strain is unlikely to be fully honest

Common mistakes

• Counting a mentee as 'active' based on a touchpoint from months ago rather than specifically since the Milestone 3 checkpoint — the requirement is continued engagement, not historical engagement
• Glossing over the real difficulty of managing 10 relationships simultaneously to present a falsely smooth narrative, when the honest version — what nearly broke, what had to be triaged — is actually more valuable as proof of real capacity

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that the touchpoint evidence for all 10 mentees is dated AFTER the Milestone 3 checkpoint, not stale evidence from earlier in the outcome being reused.
• If any mentees were replaced, ask: 'What happened with the original mentee, honestly?' A vague or evasive answer about a dropped mentee is worth probing further.
• Read the logistics reflection for genuine strain described — a reflection with no friction at all managing 10 people is implausible and worth a follow-up question about what was actually hardest.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

For 5 of your 10 mentees, describe their original goal, what changed during mentoring, and evidence of what is still true or still happening at least 4 weeks after your regular active mentoring with them ended or substantially decreased. Get a written statement from at least 2 of these 5 mentees, in their own words, about what the mentoring meant to them or what changed for them. Write 300 words on the full arc of mentoring 10 people: what made some relationships durable and others not, and what you would do differently starting from zero again.

What gets checked

• Durability evidence is genuinely independent of the mentor's continued active involvement — the mentee is sustaining the change or outcome on their own, not still requiring weekly mentor check-ins to maintain it
• The 2+ mentee statements are in the mentees' own words, not written or heavily edited by the mentor — specific enough to sound like a real person's account rather than a generic testimonial
• The closing reflection on what made relationships durable versus not is specific and shows real pattern recognition across the 10 people, not a generic 'mentoring is rewarding' summary

Common mistakes

• Claiming durability for outcomes that still require the mentor's ongoing weekly involvement to sustain — if the mentee would stop immediately without continued mentor contact, that is ongoing dependency, not a durable outcome
• Writing or heavily editing the mentee testimonials to sound more impressive — ask mentees to write their own statement independently, even if it is shorter or less polished than the mentor would prefer

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm at least 4 weeks have genuinely passed since active mentoring decreased for the 5 mentees being assessed — ask for the approximate date active mentoring slowed and the date of the durability evidence.
• Read the 2+ mentee statements carefully — do they sound like the mentee's own voice and specific experience, or do they read as something the mentor wrote and the mentee approved? Ask to verify directly with a mentee if there is doubt.
• Ask the mentor: 'If you stopped all contact with this person tomorrow, would the outcome you are claiming still hold?' A confident, specific yes with reasoning is the strongest evidence of genuine durability.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.