// loading
For the IT manager: across 78 scenarios, the team is graded on the five-dim rubric. Two views: across-team-by-dim, and per-dim-over-time. The map is the report. The report links to the candidate transcripts so you can see what "tool fluency 64" looks like in your shop, not in some industry average.
shares the rubric with /assess, same five dims, pairs with Workplace skill mapping
Networking core, communication scores. They fix it; they cannot write the ticket reply. We have six learn-hub lessons for this, linked from the cell.
Helpdesk L1 cohort is 11 points off the L2 methodology threshold. With a focused 3-week loop on the AD OU lab they are at the line.
Linux sysadmin tool fluency. Do not lose this; the seven people in that band are the bench you can move into the SRE track. Talk to them.
Each cell is a weighted mean of every submission your team has made in the last 90 days, against that dimension, on that track. The N column tells you how many transcripts the cell is built from; cells with fewer than 5 are dimmed because the signal is shaky. The map links to the transcripts: click "tool fluency 64" and you will get the 11 specific scenarios where your bench landed in band 0 or 1.
You take this heatmap to the L&D budget meeting; the gap is the line item. Three months later, you take the same heatmap back and the cells you spent on shifted. The map is shipping evidence. Not "we ran a workshop," but "we lifted networking-core communication from 58 to 76 across n=14 in 90 days."
Three quarters ago the heatmap said our networking team could not write a ticket reply. We bought the training. It worked. The next heatmap was the evidence.
VP of IT operations, regional bank, 2025part of the Workplace bundle, same rubric as Assess, CSV export included