Run Event

Proof required

Submit: (1) an event plan document (one page minimum) covering the event purpose, date, venue or platform, expected attendance range, and the list of volunteer roles; (2) a confirmed volunteer roster showing at least 3 volunteers with their assigned roles and evidence of their confirmation (reply, planning meeting attendance, or sign-up record); (3) a brief written assessment (100 words) of what would happen to the event if one of your key volunteers dropped out the day before.

What gets checked

• Event plan specifies a real venue or platform, a real date, and a clear purpose — 'a community event to bring people together' is not a sufficient purpose; what specifically will attendees do or learn at this event?
• At least 3 confirmed volunteers with specific named roles — confirmed means they responded to an ask with a yes, attended a planning meeting, or added their name to a roles document; verbal agreement with no follow-up is not confirmed
• The contingency assessment is honest about single points of failure — if the event cannot run without one specific person, the plan has a dependency that must be acknowledged and partially mitigated before M2

Common mistakes

• Planning for an ideal volunteer turnout and having no contingency — volunteer-staffed events regularly face last-minute dropouts; a plan that assumes 100% volunteer attendance is a plan for a likely scramble
• Designing the volunteer roles as if they were paid staff positions — a volunteer doing 'whatever needs doing' for 8 hours is burning goodwill; clearly scoped, time-limited roles with a defined end signal are what make volunteering sustainable
• Not confirming roles in writing — a volunteer who 'seemed enthusiastic' at a social gathering has not confirmed; the M1 roster requires a concrete confirmation action, because vague agreements produce vague attendance

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Event purpose specificity: ask the submitter to describe in one sentence what a first-time attendee would do or learn at this event — if they cannot answer specifically, the event purpose is not clear enough to plan around
• Volunteer confirmation: a list of names with no evidence of confirmation does not satisfy the standard; each volunteer should have a confirmation artefact (reply, sign-up, attendance record)
• Contingency assessment: a good M1 assessment names the most critical single point of failure and proposes at least one specific mitigation (cross-training another volunteer, reducing scope, or having a backup contact confirmed) — an assessment that says 'we'd manage somehow' is too vague

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) attendance evidence — a sign-in sheet, Eventbrite/Meetup attendance export, or photos showing the event occurred, with an approximate attendee count; (2) a volunteer coordination log for the day — which of your confirmed volunteers showed up and which did not, and how you handled any absence; (3) a post-event summary (150 words) describing what the event achieved and one specific thing that went differently than planned.

What gets checked

• Attendance evidence is real — photos, a sign-in sheet, or platform export showing the event occurred; 'approximately X people attended' with no supporting evidence does not satisfy this standard
• Volunteer coordination log covers all confirmed volunteers, including those who did not show — what specifically happened when a volunteer was absent, even if all volunteers attended (in which case, state this directly)
• Post-event summary identifies one real deviation from the plan and describes what was done about it — a deviation that did not occur should be stated as such, and the summary should then describe what came closest to a challenge on the day

Common mistakes

• Presenting only success signals and omitting any coordination challenges — a volunteer-staffed community event with no coordination friction is rare; a post-event summary that mentions no challenges is more likely to be incomplete than exceptional
• Conflating event completion with volunteer coordination proof — the event happening is necessary but not sufficient; the coordination log and the deviation account are what demonstrate GOVERNANCE-level leadership under real conditions
• Not documenting attendance at all — an event that 'happened' without any attendance record is not verifiable; even a photograph of a room with people satisfies the attendance evidence standard when a sign-in sheet is not available

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Attendance evidence: a photograph of an empty or near-empty room for an event described as '50 attendees' does not satisfy the standard; evidence quality should match the claimed scale
• Coordination log gaps: if a volunteer did not show up and the event proceeded without that role being filled, ask how the function that role was supposed to serve was handled
• Deviation account: a deviation that changes the event outcome (venue ran over time, keynote dropped out, fewer attendees than expected) demonstrates real coordination under pressure; a trivial deviation (setup took longer than planned) is acceptable but is a weaker proof signal

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) evidence of at least one volunteer debriefing conversation — a written summary of the debrief, not just 'I spoke to them'; (2) a 300-word reflection covering: what specifically created or destroyed volunteer motivation on the day, what you would change about how roles were defined or briefed, and whether you believe the event would have run successfully without your direct involvement (honest answer expected); (3) if you ran a feedback mechanism for attendees (survey, comment cards, post-event message), include a summary of the results.

What gets checked

• Volunteer debrief evidence shows at least one volunteer's perspective, not just the leader's perception of how it went — what the volunteer found rewarding and what they found draining is the debrief content
• Reflection addresses volunteer motivation specifically — not event logistics (room size, catering) but what made the volunteering experience itself worth the volunteer's time
• Replaceability answer is honest — 'yes, Sarah did most of the real coordination and the event was largely her work' is an acceptable and actually strong answer; it demonstrates self-awareness about contribution vs. replaceability

Common mistakes

• Treating the debrief as a formality — a two-minute check-in that surfaces no specific feedback does not satisfy the debrief evidence standard; a debrief should produce at least two specific pieces of feedback the leader did not already know
• Answering the replaceability question optimistically without evidence — 'the volunteers would have figured it out' is not an answer; naming who specifically would have stepped into the coordination role and what they would have done is
• Skipping the attendee feedback mechanism entirely — even a 3-question post-event survey to 10 attendees provides signal about whether the event created the value it was designed to create

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Debrief evidence quality: 'volunteers enjoyed the event' is not a debrief; specific feedback about what was rewarding (clear role with a defined end time) and what was draining (setup ran over and nobody communicated) is the standard
• Replaceability self-assessment: the verifier should ask whether any volunteer was doing a large share of the actual coordination — if so, the M3 reflection should acknowledge this rather than present the leader as the sole coordinator
• For first-time event organisers: the most common M3 reflection failure is praise without critique; a genuine M3 reflection names at least one thing the leader would do differently in their own behaviour, not in the venue or catering

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