# Brand Voice Calibration Test

Compare reviewer judgments on representative passages and resolve inconsistent interpretations of voice principles, tone boundaries, and acceptable revisions.

## Usage note

Use this test to improve shared interpretation, not rank or embarrass individual reviewers. Remove author names from samples where practical and keep factual accuracy separate from voice preference. Calibration should clarify weak guidance and decision authority rather than forcing artificial agreement on every stylistic choice.

## How to use this template

1. Define the voice dimensions, production decisions, and rating anchors the exercise will calibrate.
2. Prepare varied anonymized samples with enough audience and situation context to judge fairly.
3. Collect independent ratings, decisions, textual evidence, and proposed revisions before group discussion.
4. Analyze disagreements, resolve consequential boundaries through the authorized owner, and update guidance.
5. Repeat with fresh samples and record whether consistency and decision quality improved.

## Blank template

### Test setup

- **Calibration goal:** [Which decisions need consistency?]
- **Voice principles:** [Links and versions]
- **Participants:** [Reviewer roles]
- **Decision owner:** [Who resolves boundaries?]
- **Sample channels:** [Interface, email, page, support, or another]
- **Blind-review method:** [How authors and other scores are hidden]
- **Test date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Sample score

- **Sample ID:** [Neutral label]
- **Audience and situation:** [Context]
- **Reader task:** [What the passage must do]
- **Accuracy status:** [Verified / Provided for test / Needs separate review]
- **Voice dimension 1:** [1–4 and textual evidence]
- **Voice dimension 2:** [1–4 and textual evidence]
- **Tone fit:** [1–4 and reason]
- **Decision:** [Accept / Revise / Reject]
- **Proposed revision:** [Specific change]
- **Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low]

### Disagreement analysis

- **Rating spread:** [Range]
- **Different interpretations:** [Summarize fairly]
- **Rule ambiguity:** [What guidance failed?]
- **Situation ambiguity:** [What context was missing?]
- **Risk difference:** [What consequence reviewers weighted differently?]
- **Resolved decision:** [Outcome and authority]
- [ ] A factual error is not treated as a voice preference.
- [ ] Minority reasoning was reviewed before resolution.
- [ ] The resolution includes a production-ready example.

### Follow-up

- **Guide change:** [Rule or anchor revision]
- **Example-library entry:** [Link or planned item]
- **New test sample:** [Boundary to retest]
- **Second-round result:** [Consistency and remaining issue]
- **Owner and review date:** [Accountability]