# SIGNAL Call Rubric The SIGNAL Call Rubric helps teams evaluate how well a design review created clarity. It looks at the conversation itself. What problem surfaced? What outcome was defined? What signals shaped the direction? Did the call end with clear ownership and next steps? This makes the review easier to improve. The team can see where the conversation gained strength, where it lost momentum, and what to change next time. ## **Why This Matters** In product and design work, decisions rarely fail all at once. They lose strength gradually. That usually shows up when: - The problem is loosely defined - Outcomes stay unclear - Evidence is mentioned but not used - Direction forms but does not stick - Ownership stays vague - Next steps are implied but not confirmed From the outside, the call may look productive. Inside the work, momentum slows. The [SIGNAL Call Rubric](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/signal-call-rubric) makes that visible. It shows where the conversation lost strength, so the team can keep the work moving. ### **Use this rubric with a transcript** The clearest way to evaluate a design review is to run the rubric against a call transcript. A transcript shows what actually happened in the conversation. It gives the team something concrete to review, rather than relying on memory or gut feel after the call. Use the rubric to turn the transcript into a clear read on the review. - **Input:** a design review transcript - **Process:** evaluate the call across Surface, Identify, Ground, Navigate, Align, and Lock - **Output:** a scored view of where the conversation created clarity and where it lost strength This gives the team a practical way to improve the next review. ## **The Decision Flow** Every design review moves through a sequence, whether the team names it or not. The SIGNAL model makes that sequence clear: **Surface → Identify → Ground → Navigate → Align → Lock** Each step reduces uncertainty. By the end of the flow, the group moves from an open problem to a committed next step. - **Surface** — the underlying challenge becomes clear - **Identify** — the desired outcome is defined - **Ground** — evidence is introduced - **Navigate** — a direction is formed - **Align** — responsibility is clarified - **Lock** — next steps are secured These steps build on each other. When a meeting feels incomplete or stalls later, the cause is often found in an earlier step that did not fully develop. * * * ## **SIGNAL Design Review Skills** Each part of [SIGNAL call rubric](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/signal-call-rubric) represents a moment in a conversation where something important needs to happen. When these moments come together, the call moves forward with clarity and direction. When one is weak or skipped, the rest of the conversation has to work harder to compensate. * * * ## **S — Surface Challenges** **Focus: clarifying the underlying problem** Most calls begin with something that sounds clear. A request, a goal, or a feature that needs attention. What matters is whether the conversation stays at that level or moves into what is actually driving it. As the discussion deepens, the problem becomes more specific. Pressure or urgency starts to show up, and people begin to describe what isn’t working in real terms. You can hear this shift in the language. The conversation moves from describing what is wanted to describing what is happening. This step sets the foundation for everything that follows. **It considers** - Whether the root issue is explored - Whether consequences are made visible - Whether the challenge is clearly acknowledged **What to listen for** - Language that describes friction or failure - Signs of urgency or pressure - Movement from requests to real situations **What this unlocks **A clear challenge gives the conversation direction. It creates something real for the group to respond to. **What breaks if it’s weak **The conversation stays general. Ideas are discussed without being tied to a real problem. **Connection to the next step **If the problem isn’t clear, outcomes are harder to define. * * * ## **I — Identify Outcomes** **Focus: defining what “better” means** Once the problem is clear, the conversation moves toward outcomes. This is where the group defines what they are trying to change. At first, this may stay broad. As the conversation develops, stronger calls make outcomes more specific. People describe what needs to improve, who it affects, and how success would show up. When outcomes are clear, feedback becomes more focused and easier to evaluate. **It considers** - Whether business objectives are explicit - Whether user needs are clear - Whether success is shared and understood **What to listen for** - Clear statements of what should improve - Connections between user behavior and business impact - Agreement on what success looks like **What this unlocks **Clear outcomes give the conversation a target and help guide decisions. **What breaks if it’s weak **The call drifts into opinions and preferences without a clear way to evaluate them. **Connection to the next step **Signals need a clear outcome to point toward. [Stella Parisi](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stellaparisi/) calls out: > I believe one of the hardest parts is to define clear Objectives and Key Results that can help us measure the design impact at different levels from the beginning of the project. The impact can be on the business, on the value for users or in the society in general. > > When Objectives and Key results are well defined and track, it helps in communicating the progress to the various stakeholders during the design development and of course in the end. * * * ## **G — Ground in Signals** **Focus: bringing evidence into the conversation** As the conversation progresses, it needs to connect to something real. Signals can come from user feedback, data, testing, or patterns the team has observed. What matters is how they are used. When signals are applied well, the conversation becomes more grounded. People adjust their thinking based on something shared. Signals do not need to be perfect. They need to be real enough to guide the discussion. **It considers** - Whether real data or user feedback is referenced - Whether a baseline or change is understood - Whether signals influence decisions **What to listen for** - References to user behavior - Data tied to a change or comparison - Moments where direction shifts based on evidence **What this unlocks **Signals reduce ambiguity and help the group move forward with confidence. **What breaks if it’s weak **The conversation loops. Opinions repeat without progress. **Connection to the next step **Signals make it easier to form a clear direction. * * * ## **N — Navigate Decisions** **Focus: shaping a clear direction** With context in place, the conversation moves toward a decision. You can hear this when someone connects the discussion and points toward a path. A recommendation forms, tradeoffs are acknowledged, and priorities become clearer. The conversation shifts from exploring ideas to shaping a direction. **It considers** - Whether a recommendation is made - Whether tradeoffs are clear - Whether agreement begins to form **What to listen for** - Clear recommendations - Acknowledgment of tradeoffs - Movement toward a decision **What this unlocks **A clear direction gives the group something to align around. **What breaks if it’s weak **Options are discussed but not resolved. Decisions are delayed. **Connection to the next step **Ownership depends on a clear direction. * * * ## **A — Align Ownership** **Focus: making responsibility visible** Once a direction is established, the conversation turns to responsibility. This is where the group clarifies who will carry the work forward. Ownership becomes visible, and expectations become clearer. This step connects the decision to execution. **It considers** - Whether a clear owner is identified - Whether decision authority is understood - Whether responsibilities are defined **What to listen for** - Clear naming of owners - Confirmation of responsibility - Clarity on who is driving the next step **What this unlocks **Ownership creates accountability and helps the work move forward. **What breaks if it’s weak **Work slows down. Responsibility is assumed but not confirmed. **Connection to the next step **Momentum depends on ownership. * * * ## **L — Lock Momentum** **Focus: turning the conversation into action** The final step determines whether the conversation continues into the work or fades out. Momentum shows up in how the call closes. Next steps are clear, timing is discussed, and alignment is confirmed. The group leaves knowing what will happen next. **It considers** - Whether actions are clearly defined - Whether timing is established - Whether alignment is confirmed **What to listen for** - Specific next steps - Timing or checkpoints - Clear confirmation of alignment **What this unlocks **Momentum carries the decision forward and turns agreement into action. **What breaks if it’s weak **The call ends without traction. The same topics return later. **Connection to the system **This completes the cycle and sets up the next conversation. * * * ## **How to use the results** After the transcript is reviewed, look for the step where clarity first dropped. That is usually where the next improvement should happen. - If Surface is weak, spend more time clarifying the real problem. - If Identify is weak, define success before debating the design. - If Ground is weak, bring stronger signals into the review. - If Navigate is weak, make tradeoffs and recommendations more explicit. - If Align is weak, clarify who owns the next move. - If Lock is weak, confirm actions and timing before the call ends. The goal is not to perfect every review. The goal is to find the part of the conversation that needs the most help and improve it next time. The [SIGNAL Call Rubric](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/signal-call-rubric) helps teams see how decisions form inside a design review. It breaks the call into clear steps, shows where the conversation is strong, and highlights where it loses strength. Over time, this creates more consistent reviews, clearer decisions, and stronger outcomes.