Audit onboarding mentorship evidence integrity

Audit point-in-time onboarding cohorts, ordered autonomy milestones, source completeness and corroborated mentorship windows before publishing privacy-safe ramp evidence.

What it's for

Makes Gitrevio's onboarding and mentoring claims auditable: leadership sees whether the cohort, source and milestone evidence is trustworthy before comparing ramp outcomes.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

Field Type Role Required
as_of_ms number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
evidence_cutoff_ms number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
maximum_autonomy_days number ≥ 1 Your calibration Optional
mentorship_relationships array of objects (10 fields) ≥ 0 items Evidence Yes
minimum_cohort_size integer ≥ 2, ≤ 10000 Your calibration Optional
minimum_identity_coverage number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 Your calibration Optional
minimum_milestone_coverage number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 Your calibration Optional
minimum_source_coverage number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 Your calibration Optional
onboarding_episodes array of objects (11 fields) Evidence Yes
onboarding_milestones array of objects (8 fields) ≥ 0 items Evidence Yes
source_snapshots array of objects (6 fields) Evidence Yes
window_start_ms number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes

Each onboarding_episodes record

Field Type Required
cohort_id string (non-empty) Yes
consent_verified boolean Yes
ended_at_ms any Yes
evidence_verified boolean Yes
id string (non-empty) Yes
identity_confidence number (≥ 0, ≤ 1) Yes
observed_at_ms number (≥ 0) Yes
role_id string (non-empty) Yes
source_id string (non-empty) Yes
started_at_ms number (≥ 0) Yes
team_id string (non-empty) Yes
Example input
{
  "as_of_ms": 864000000,
  "evidence_cutoff_ms": 864000000,
  "mentorship_relationships": [
    {
      "consent_verified": true,
      "corroborated": true,
      "ended_at_ms": 518400000,
      "episode_id": "onboarding-0",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "mentorship-0",
      "mentor_ref": "mentor-0",
      "recorded_at_ms": 172800000,
      "source_id": "mentorship",
      "started_at_ms": 86400000
    },
    {
      "consent_verified": true,
      "corroborated": true,
      "ended_at_ms": 518400000,
      "episode_id": "onboarding-1",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "mentorship-1",
      "mentor_ref": "mentor-1",
      "recorded_at_ms": 172800000,
      "source_id": "mentorship",
      "started_at_ms": 86400000
    },
    {
      "consent_verified": true,
      "corroborated": true,
      "ended_at_ms": 518400000,
      "episode_id": "onboarding-2",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "mentorship-2",
      "mentor_ref": "mentor-0",
      "recorded_at_ms": 172800000,
      "source_id": "mentorship",
      "started_at_ms": 86400000
    },
    {
      "consent_verified": true,
      "corroborated": true,
      "ended_at_ms": 518400000,

Truncated for display — the full payload is 448 lines.

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

Example output
{
  "cohort_summaries": [
    {
      "autonomy_observed_fraction": 1,
      "cohort_id": "2026-q2",
      "episode_count": 6,
      "median_observed_autonomy_days": 4,
      "mentorship_coverage": 1,
      "role_id": "backend",
      "team_id": "payments"
    }
  ],
  "coverage": {
    "identity_coverage": 1,
    "milestone_coverage": 1,
    "source_coverage": 1
  },
  "decision": "accepted",
  "finding": "evidence_ready",
  "gates": {
    "integrity_passed": true,
    "maximum_autonomy_days": 120,
    "minimum_cohort_size": 5,
    "minimum_identity_coverage": 0.95,
    "minimum_milestone_coverage": 0.8,
    "minimum_source_coverage": 0.9
  },
  "integrity_diagnostics": {
    "duplicate_snapshot_expected_episode": 0,
    "duplicate_snapshot_source": 0,
    "source_expected_episode_missing": 0
  },
  "interpretation": "Milestones and mentorship are cohort-system evidence, not employee ratings. Small groups are suppressed; commit volume is never treated as autonomy, and this audit cannot support hiring, firing, compensation, or mentor ranking.",
  "method": "point_in_time_onboarding_milestone_mentorship_lineage_audit_v1",
  "repair_queue": [],
  "summary": {
    "autonomy_observed_count": 6,
    "episode_count": 6,
    "episode_with_milestone_count": 6,
    "median_observed_autonomy_days": 4,
    "mentored_episode_count": 6,
    "suppressed_small_group_count": 0
  }
}

How it works

Statistical audit & measurement — Check whether a number is fit to decide on: coverage, timing, reconciliation, and the gaps a dashboard hides.

  1. 1 Freeze the tenant, cohort window, evidence cutoff, consent, identity resolution, source snapshots and milestone-definition version; reject future, orphan, duplicate, impossible or unverified records.
  2. 2 Reconcile each onboarding episode to complete HR, Git and mentorship snapshots, enforce milestone time order from first change through independent delivery to autonomy, and require every mentor relationship to be consented and corroborated.
  3. 3 Publish only cohort/role/team aggregates above the privacy threshold, keeping lineage defects separate from slow observed autonomy and suppressing small groups rather than exposing people.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Assumptions & guardrails

  • Metric definitions, weights, aggregate grain, sampling, missingness, dependence, and comparison windows correspond to the management claim being audited.
  • Start/end dates, opaque identities, milestone definitions, source-completeness snapshots and mentorship corroboration are immutable at the cutoff; autonomy is a governed outcome and never commit volume.
  • Association, instability, or measurement quality is not a causal effect and must not be converted directly into an individual employment decision.
  • This is cohort-system evidence, not a new-hire or mentor score. Never use it for hiring, firing, compensation, promotion, surveillance or productivity inference.

Minimum evidence

  • onboarding_episodes: required and organization-defined
  • onboarding_milestones: at least 0 rows/items
  • mentorship_relationships: at least 0 rows/items
  • source_snapshots: required and organization-defined
  • window_start_ms: required and organization-defined
  • as_of_ms: required and organization-defined
  • evidence_cutoff_ms: required and organization-defined

How to validate it

Validate on future periods or held-out aggregate units, compare with a simple baseline, and require stability across plausible metric definitions and decision thresholds.

Calibrating it to your org

Same for everyone

The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.

Specific to you

  • one privacy-eligible point-in-time onboarding episode per opaque joiner joined to versioned first-change, first-review, independent-delivery and autonomy milestones, effective mentor windows and null-preserving expected-source snapshots
  • lawful purpose and consent, opaque identity confidence, cohort/role/team boundary, autonomy and milestone definition version, source-completeness perimeter, corroboration rule, minimum publishable group, evidence cutoff, maximum autonomy review threshold and prohibition on employment use

Calibration workflow

  1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
  2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
  3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
  4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
  5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
  6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "audit pointintime onboarding cohorts ordered autonomy" }
  → finds "audit_onboarding_mentorship_evidence_integrity"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "audit_onboarding_mentorship_evidence_integrity" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "audit_onboarding_mentorship_evidence_integrity", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

Forecast onboarding time to autonomy economics

Forecast remaining time-to-autonomy and delay-cost tails with a company-local right-censored, partially pooled log-normal AFT model that must beat a global baseline on the latest whole cohort.

Forecasting & survival

Optimize onboarding mentorship portfolio

Choose an interference-aware mentorship portfolio using only prospective controlled effects, reliability shrinkage, common autonomy scenarios, unique shared loss, mentor capacity, service gates, CVaR and exact-or-disclosed beam search.

Forecasting & survival

Analyze info gap robust satisficing

Select a robust-satisficing action under severe uncertainty with Info-Gap Decision Theory: evaluate worst and best payoff across a governed nested uncertainty envelope, maximize the radius before a critical requirement fails, report windfall opportuneness, and use no scenario probabilities.

Decision analysis

Audit attention fragmentation evidence integrity

Audit consented point-in-time contributor identity, availability, privacy-safe calendar metadata and work-session lineage before reporting aggregate meeting load, protected focus blocks or cross-project switching.

Statistical audit & measurement

Audit attrition risk prediction integrity

Audit an attrition model's complete eligible cohort, point-in-time features, supportive-use governance, intervention-contaminated labels, competing outcomes, calibration, false positives and authorized subgroup error before any person-level use.

Forecasting & survival

Audit code knowledge concentration integrity

Audit file, module, service, or repository knowledge concentration from point-in-time substantive changes, reviews, incident response and documentation using identity-confidence filtering, recency decay, Bayesian ownership uncertainty, entropy-effective owners, HHI and leave-top-owner-out resilience—without turning contribution evidence into a person-performance score.

Sequential Bayesian & bandits

See every tool in People, retention & knowledge →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?

Request a free demo