Mentor Someone From Stuck to Moving

Proof required

Share: (1) the written mentoring agreement or summary (goal, timeframe, session frequency, and success definition), (2) a description of the mentee's starting point covering current skill level, immediate challenge, and one specific measurable goal, and (3) the mentee's confirmation that the agreement reflects their goals — this can be a short written statement or email reply from the mentee.

What gets checked

• Goal is specific and measurable — 'get better at coding' is not measurable; 'complete a working CRUD web app and push it to GitHub within 10 weeks' is
• Starting point is documented with enough specificity that progress can be measured against it later — 'beginner coder' is not specific; 'can write basic Python functions but has never built a web app or used version control' is
• Mentee confirmation is in the mentee's own words — the mentor's paraphrase of what the mentee wants is not the same as the mentee's own statement

Common mistakes

• Setting a goal that is too broad to measure — 'become a better developer' has no end point; goals that take longer than 12 weeks to assess are too large for a single mentoring engagement
• Skipping the starting-point documentation — without a baseline, M3's progress evidence is a claim without a reference point; document the starting point before the first substantive session
• Writing the agreement yourself and asking the mentee to sign off — the agreement should reflect the mentee's goals in their own framing; a mentor-authored agreement that the mentee passively accepts usually misses what the mentee actually wants

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask for the mentee's goal in the mentee's own words — if the submitter can only paraphrase what the mentee wants, the agreement was not co-created
• Ask about the baseline: what can the mentee do now, and how will that be measured against the goal at M3? — if the baseline is vague, the M3 progress evidence will be vague too
• Confirm the mentee voluntarily chose this mentoring relationship — captive or assigned mentees produce very different dynamics than self-selected ones; the distinction matters for how to interpret the outcome evidence

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

Proof required

Share a session log covering all 6 sessions with: session date, main topic discussed, commitment the mentee made at the end of the session, and whether the commitment was completed before the next session. If a commitment was not completed, include one sentence on what was discussed about it. You do not need to include sensitive personal information — summarise topics at the level of 'discussed career options in data vs. product management' rather than personal details.

What gets checked

• 6 sessions on 6 separate dates spanning at least 6 calendar weeks — 6 sessions in a single week is 6 conversations, not a mentoring relationship
• Each session entry includes a specific commitment the mentee made — 'work on the project' is not a commitment; 'push a working login page to GitHub by Thursday' is
• At least one session entry notes that a commitment was not completed and describes what was discussed — a log where every commitment was completed on time is either unusually productive or is being reported selectively

Common mistakes

• Sessions without commitments — a mentoring session that ends without the mentee committing to a next action is likely to produce no change between sessions; the commitment is what drives progress
• Log entries written all at once at the end of 6 weeks — session logs written immediately after each session capture specifics that are lost after a few days; a log written all at once will read uniformly and lack the specificity of real notes
• Sessions that are too infrequent to maintain momentum — sessions more than 3 weeks apart allow the mentee to lose context and revert to old patterns; the minimum of one session per week is intentional

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask for the session log and review the commitment column — specific, time-bound commitments ('push code by Thursday') are the signal of a real working mentoring relationship; vague entries ('think about career direction') suggest the sessions lack structure
• Ask about one session where the mentee did not complete their commitment — how did the mentor handle that conversation? This reveals whether the mentoring relationship has the honest feedback quality that distinguishes effective mentoring from supportive chat
• Check the date spread: 6 sessions should span at least 6 weeks — bunching sessions together defeats the purpose of building sustained momentum

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

Proof required

Share: (1) a comparison between the M1 baseline and the mentee's current state against the specific goal — concrete evidence (a shipped project, a score, a new skill demonstrated, a job offer received, etc.), (2) a short written testimony from the mentee (3–5 sentences) about what changed for them and what was most useful about the mentoring, (3) a 200–300 word reflection on how your mentoring approach evolved and one thing you would do differently next time.

What gets checked

• Progress evidence is concrete and comparable to the M1 baseline — 'the mentee improved' is not evidence; 'the mentee shipped a working app and has 3 GitHub commits from the last 4 weeks, compared to zero at M1' is
• Mentee testimony is in the mentee's own words and names something specific — 'it was really helpful' is not testimony; 'the weekly commitment structure meant I actually did the work between sessions instead of waiting for motivation' is
• Mentor reflection is honest about at least one mistake or missed opportunity — a reflection where everything went well and nothing would be changed next time is implausible

Common mistakes

• Progress evidence that describes the mentee's stated intentions rather than demonstrated change — 'the mentee plans to apply for jobs' is not progress; 'the mentee has submitted 3 applications and received 1 interview since the mentoring began' is
• Mentee testimony written by the mentor — the testimony must be in the mentee's own words, even if it is brief; a mentor-authored summary of the mentee's experience is not the same thing
• Reflection that credits all the mentee's progress to the mentoring — attribution is complex; honest mentors acknowledge that the mentee did the work and identify specifically what the mentoring contributed

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask to see the M1 baseline document alongside the M3 progress evidence — the comparison between baseline and current state is what constitutes proof of progress; progress claimed without a baseline is unverifiable
• Ask for the mentee testimony document and confirm it is in the mentee's own words — ask the submitter whether they reviewed or edited the testimony before submitting; editing a mentee's testimony introduces a credibility problem
• Ask the mentor what they would do differently in the next mentoring relationship — a specific, honest answer ('I would establish the session commitment structure in the first session rather than in session 3') shows genuine reflective practice; a vague answer suggests the reflection was performative

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