P2P Sessions

p2p sessions shows peer to peer coaching across all your projects at once where it should be running and is not, which studies report this week, and what the coaching changed where a study is a single coaching round inside one project, this page is the layer above it available under team management ▸ p2p sessions note p2p sessions is available to organization users with the team manager or admin role — the same access as productivity insights scope two pickers at the top decide which rows you see workspaces — the page opens on your current workspace the label shows how many of your workspaces are in scope, for example workspaces (2 of 7) organizations — narrows to the annotator organizations you want to look at both travel in the link copy the url and the person you send it to sees the same scope a link naming a workspace they cannot open falls back to their default rather than showing an empty page the evaluation window (1 to 4 weeks) sets how far back the speed figures are measured changing it costs no extra loading — the page always fetches four weeks and reads the tail you asked for coverage one row per active project in scope column description project the project the row describes opens that project's studies tab workspace the workspace the project belongs to active users people with enough annotation work in the last four weeks to measure at least five days with output and at least five annotate hours anyone below that floor cannot be read, so they are not counted and cannot be placed in a session gap the percentage point difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% average annotate speed, over the selected evaluation window status whether a session is expected here state whether p2p is actually running ongoing (n) with the number of sessions running or booked, inactive since \<date> , or never run auto suggest opens the planner for that project status has four values above threshold — the gap exceeds the threshold, so a session is expected below threshold — the project qualifies for p2p, but the gap is under the threshold exempt — the process does not expect p2p at this stage few users — the gap could not be measured projects sort so the ones needing attention come first a project counts as needing attention once a fortnight has passed since its last session every column heading carries the rule behind its figures on hover projects where nobody can be paired — fewer than the people a session needs — are left out of the list, because p2p cannot run in them at all show all projects brings them back, reading few users click anywhere on a row to open a panel beside the list with that project's studies what is running, what is booked, and, under previously run , what has already finished each card opens its study the list behind the panel stays usable; esc closes it, and so does changing tab trigger criteria expand trigger criteria to see the rules the verdicts are derived from, and change them field default what it does min users 5 half of the exemption rule a project is left out of p2p only when it has fewer than this many measurable users and is younger than the minimum age min age (weeks) 4 the other half a project older than this is expected to run p2p however few users it has gap threshold (pp) 20 the main trigger when the gap between the top and bottom fifth exceeds it, a session is expected even if the project is hitting its overall target cooldown (days) 10 days after a study ends before its members are suggested for another one clear the field to switch the rule off min users, min age and the gap threshold are the p2p process's own numbers the cooldown is ours it keeps a second session from landing inside the first one's evaluation window, where the reading would be unattributable editing a field re derives every verdict immediately, with no loading the values stay for your session and deliberately do not travel in a shared link — a link carrying a 30pp bar would show the recipient non standard verdicts with nothing on screen saying so reviews due the weekly report's figures first completed in the last two weeks ongoing or booked reporting this week people are counted distinctly, so someone in two studies is one person below that, one row per project first review , second review , just finished and the distinct members across them click a project to see the studies behind the counts, which review each is due, and its annotate speed change the two review points are fixed by the process first review — the first monday after the session a session delivered on a monday reports the following monday, not the same morning second review — the monday on or after the study's end date impact annotate speed improvement from coaching, in two views by project — one row per project with the number of studies, the average change and how many changed clearly by coach — one row per person who delivered sessions, with the projects they delivered in and the distinct people they worked with filter to a single project and the figures are rebuilt for that project rather than the other rows being hidden coaches are listed best result first, in two tiers those whose average cleared their studies' own pre session variation, then those whose average sits inside it the second tier are the readings we cannot call, not the worst performers an average that no study's change cleared is greyed out, with the reason on hover it is arithmetic over readings that are each inside their own noise, so it is a real number but not yet evidence