CELPIP Reading Part 1 Practice Test: Annual Review Fix

Dear Mr. Ellery,

I am writing to ask that one paragraph of my annual review be corrected, and to request twenty minutes of your time before the promotion list closes on the thirtieth. I am not disputing the review as a whole. What I am challenging is the single sentence that calls the Tillsonburg catalogue delay a failure of planning on my part.

The catalogue did go out eleven days late, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. What the review leaves out is why. Larkfield Print missed two paper deliveries in a row, on the eighth and the nineteenth of February, and we had no second printer approved at that point. I put the risk in writing on the third of February, six weeks before the launch date, and the note is still sitting in the shared folder if anyone cares to look.

I will own the part that was mine. My warning went into the weekly summary rather than straight to Gordon, and by the time he read it we had lost a week we could not get back. Had I picked up the phone instead, the delay would probably have been four or five days rather than eleven. That is a fair criticism and I would sign it. A failure of planning is a different charge altogether. One describes a habit; the other describes a single bad judgement call.

I would also ask that the numbers go in somewhere. My territory finished the year up eighteen percent, I opened nine new accounts, and both of the large contracts that were said to be at risk in January renewed in the autumn. None of that appears anywhere in the four pages. Gordon coached me carefully through the spring and I have told his director so, which is why I am not making a complaint about him; I think the form simply got written in a hurry.

Could we meet this week? I can bring the note and the figures on paper if that is easier. I would like that sentence amended and the sales figures attached before the panel sits, because once the promotion decisions are signed the review follows me for another year.

Sincerely,

Juliette Bourdon

Regional Accounts, Prairie West

Dear Ms. Bourdon,

The timing of your February 3 warning 7. Choose…creates ex-ante probative forceproves execution was flawlesseliminates the supplier's roleguarantees promotion eligibility, because it predates both missed deliveries and the launch rather than rationalizing the delay afterward. Your failure to phone Gordon can explain 8. Choose…only the avoidable incrementthe supplier's entire defaultall positive sales evidencea recurring planning habit, not the entire eleven days, because supplier failure created a baseline delay before escalation could shorten it. Reading a separate sales memo beside the signed review 9. Choose…balances finality with completenessguarantees a higher ratingerases the supplier delaymakes signatures reversible: the original form remains closed, yet the panel receives evidence the four-page account omitted. The panel date leaves little margin, so correcting the record now 10. Choose…preserves a meaningful remedyguarantees Juliette's promotionremoves Gordon from reviewconcedes habitual poor planning before signatures make any later amendment largely symbolic. Your explicit praise for Gordon makes the requested correction 11. Choose…an accusation of retaliationa withdrawal of criticisma demand for disciplineissue-focused rather than personal, since it attacks the form's characterization without inviting us to treat its author as the underlying problem.

Regards,

Trevor Ellery

People Operations