Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 41/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
Workshops - CHI 2025
This applied learning or working session in Unknown shows 53 visible agenda rows from heal-workshop.github.io and scores 41/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Learning Transfer; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as design intent... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Future-of-Work Fit; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 53 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Keynote; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Thought Leadership.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?81
Participation Architecture - 81/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?43
Problem Specificity - 43/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?41
Personalization - 41/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?20
Network Design - 20/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?55
Learning Transfer - 55/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?40
Evidence Maturity - 40/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.Missing: Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Future-of-Work Fit?50
Future-of-Work Fit - 50/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (20/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Personalization (41/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Journey Mapping • WorkshopBank · Group Energiser & Perspective-Changing Exercise - Paradigm... · Photo Storytelling
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
72 percent of the 53 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventHEAL@CHI'25UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCall for Participation Key Information Agenda Latest VersionUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all event→ Submission SiteUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventHEAL is back for CHI 2025! This workshop aims to address the current ''evaluation crisis'' in LLM research and practice by bringing together HCI and AI researchers and practitioners to rethink LLM evaluation and auditing from a human-centered perspective. The recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted numerous and will impact more, real-world applications. However, these models also pose significant risks to individuals and society. To mitigate these issues and guide future model development, responsible evaluation and auditing of LLMs are essential.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe CHI 2025 Workshop on H uman-centered E valuation and A uditing of L anguage Models (HEAL@CHI'25) will explore topics around understanding stakeholders' needs and goals with evaluation and auditing LMs, establishing human-centered evaluation and auditing methods, developing tools and resources to support these methods, building community, and fostering collaborationWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventKeynote SpeakersKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe primary goal of this one-day workshop is to bring together HCI and AI researchers from academia, industry, and non-profits to share their ongoing efforts around evaluating and auditing language models.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:00 AM - 9:15 AMMorning Keynote: Dr. Su Lin BlodgettKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:15 AM - 10:15 AMSpecial Theme Lightning Talks APresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:15 AM - 10:45 AMPoster Session A (in-person) // Oral Session (virtual)Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:45 AM - 11:45 AMGroup Activity I: What is "Context"?UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:45 AM - 12:15 PMLunch BreakMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:15 PM - 2:00 PMAfternoon Keynote: Dr. Gagan BansalKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
2:00 PM - 3:00 PMSpecial Theme Lightning Talks BPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
3:00 PM - 3:30 PMPoster Session B (in-person) // Display of Virtual PostersPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
3:30 PM - 4:30 PMGroup Activity II: Challenges and Opportunities in Context-Dependent Evaluation & AuditingUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:30 PM - 5:30 PMClosing RemarkUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:30 PM - 5:45 PMAll times displayed in the program are in local time (Yokohama, Japan).UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPIFU: A novel framework to evaluate the interpretability of synthetic free-text explanations in digital mental health - Y.H.P.P Priyadarshana, Ashala Senanayake, Zilu Liang [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/2PIFUAnovelframeworktoev.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventBias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Towards RUTEd Evaluation - Kristian Lum, Jacy Reese Anthis, Kevin Robinson, Chirag Nagpal, Alexander Nicholas D'Amour [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/4BiasinLanguageModelsBeyo.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating the Potentials of LLMs in User-Controlled Content Filtering on Social Media - Anna Ricarda Luther [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/evaluatingpotentialLLM.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventStep-By-Step Reasoning with Meta Cognitive Prompts to Reduce Contextual Hallucination - Brian Miki, Nicholas Vincent [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/8StepByStepReasoningwith.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAligning and Auditing Large Language Model (LLM) for Harmful Content Detection for Body Dissatisfaction and Eating Disorders (ED): Rule Development and Validation Process - Pranita Shrestha, Jue Xie, Pari Delir Haghighi, Michelle Byrne, Roisin McNaney [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/aligningandauditing.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCopilot Arena: A Platform for Code LLM Evaluation in the Wild - Wayne Chi, Valerie Chen, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Wei-Lin Chiang, Aditya Mittal, Naman Jain, Tianjun Zhang, Ion Stoica, Chris Donahue, Ameet Talwalkar [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/14CopilotArenaAPlatformfo.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventFiction vs Friction: Challenges in Evaluating LLMs on Data Visualization Tasks - Shani C Spivak, Melanie Tory [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/fictionvsfriction.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventA Gamified Evaluation and Recruitment Platform for Low Resource Language Machine Translation Systems - Carlos Rafael Catalan [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/17AGamifiedEvaluationandR.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventFrom job titles to jawlines: Using context voids to study generative AI systems - Shahan Ali Memon, Soham De, Sungha Kang, Riyan Mujtaba, Bedoor AlShebli, Katie Davis, Jaime Snyder, Jevin West [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/18Fromjobtitlestojawlines.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMulti-Criteria Model Comparison for Large Language Models - Jason L. Harman, Jaelle Scheuerman [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/multicriteriamodel.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDetecting Experiential Differences Between LLM Versions Using Psychometric Scales: a Journaling Case Study - Willem van der Maden, Pavel Okopnyi, Frode Guribye, Simone Grassini, Jichen Zhu [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/detectingexperiential.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCaught in the Cascade: Why LLM Auditing is Missing the Middle - Anna Neumann, Jat Singh [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/23CaughtintheCascadeWhyL.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventToward a Human-centered Evaluation Framework for Trustworthy LLM-powered GUI Agents - Chaoran Chen, Zhiping Zhang, Ibrahim Khalilov, Bingcan Guo, Simret A Gebreegziabher, Yanfang Ye, Ziang Xiao, Yaxing Yao, Tianshi Li, Toby Jia-Jun Li [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/24TowardaHumancenteredEva.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLLMs Are Not Reliable Human Proxies to Study Affordances in Data Visualizations - Kylie Lin, Chase Stokes, Cindy Xiong Bearfield [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/26LLMsAreNotReliableHuman.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventUnderstanding Human Heuristics in Context-Sensitive Image Captioning - Yanru Jiang, Hongjing Lu, Rick Dale [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/30UnderstandingHumanHeurist.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventChatbot Auditing and Evaluation Is (Sometimes) Ill-Posed - Aspen Hopkins, Angie Boggust, Harini Suresh [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/34ChatbotEvaluationIsSomet.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDICE: A Framework for Dimensional and Contextual of Language Models - Aryan Shrivastava, Paula Akemi Aoyagui [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/DICEaframework.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDesigning Scalable and Transparent Interfaces for Multi-Criteria Evaluation of LLM Outputs - Lakshya Sharma, Amin El Asery, Zahra Ashktorab, Qian Pan, Justin D. Weisz [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/41DesigningScalableandTran.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating LLMs in Experiential Context: Insights from a Survey of Recent CHI Publications - Christine Dierk, Jennifer Healey, Mustafa Doga Dogan [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/43EvaluatingLLMsinExperien.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventName of Thrones: Evaluating How LLMs Rank Student Names, Race, and Gender in Status Hierarchies - Jonathan Sakunkoo, Annabella Sakunkoo [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/45NameofThronesEvaluating.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCan an LLM tell me if I can legally get an abortion? - Ro Encarnación, Danaë Metaxa [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/51CananLLMtellmeifIcan.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating Robustness in LLM-based Medical Chatbots - Mukul Kumar, Karna Sai Nikhilesh Reddy, Alugubelli Dinesh Reddy [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/52EvaluatingRobustnessinLL.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvalAssist: A Human-Centered Tool for LLM-as-a-Judge - Zahra Ashktorab, Werner Geyer, Michael Desmond, Elizabeth M. Daly, Martín Santillán Cooper, Qian Pan, Erik Miehling, Tejaswini Pedapati, Hyo Jin Do [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/11EvalAssistAHumanCentered.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventExploring Bengali Creative Storytelling Capabilities of Large Language Models Across Cultural Variations - Azmine Toushik Wasi, Raima Islam, Mst Rafia Islam, Farig Sadeque, Taki Hasan Rafi, Dong-Kyu Chae [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/16ExploringBengaliCreative.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCan Large Language Models Grasp Concepts in Visual Content? A Case Study on YouTube Shorts about Depression - Jiaying Lizzy Liu, Yiheng Su, Praneel Seth [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/35CanLargeLanguageModelsG.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDeveloping A Framework to Support Human Evaluation of Bias in Generated Free Response Text - Jennifer Healey, Laurie Byrum, Md Nadeem Akhtar, Surabhi Bhargava and Moumita Sinha [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/37DevelopingAFrameworktoS.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventNo-Code Truman: Attempts to Enable Natural Language Revisions to a Real-World Code Base - J.D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Jessie Jia, Asad Nabi, Qian Yang [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/nocodetruman.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventVeriLA: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Interpretable Verification of LLM Agent Failures - Yoo Yeon Sung, Hannah Kim, Dan Z [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/39VeriLAAHumanCenteredEva.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventRethinking Theory of Mind Benchmarks: Uncovering the Limitations of Appropriating ToM Tasks to Evaluate Large Language Models - Qiaosi Wang, Xuhui Zhou, Maarten Sap, Jodi Forlizzi, Hong Shen [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/40RethinkingTheoryofMindB.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaligner: Automatic Prompt and Criteria Refinement from User Feedback - Heechan Lee, Tae Soo Kim, Juho Kim [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/47EvalignerAutomaticPrompt.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMeta-Evaluating Local LLMs: Rethinking Performance Metrics for Serious Games - Andres Isaza-Giraldo, Paulo Bala, Lucas Pereira [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/48MetaEvaluatingLocalLLMs.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTowards Use-Based Ethics Audits of LLM-Based Advice-Chatbots - Tobias Christoph, Kees van Berkel, Katta Spiel [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/49TowardsUseBasedEthicsAu.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventRepresentational Harms in LLM-Generated Narratives Against Nationalities Located in the Global South - Ilana Nguyen, Harini Suresh, Evan Shieh [[Link]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2025papers/50RepresentationalHarmsinL.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSpecial Theme: Mind the Context. We invite authors to engage with specific contexts in LLM evaluation and auditing. This theme could involve various topics: the usage contexts of LLMs (e.g., evaluating the capabilities and limitations of LLM applications in mental wellness care, or translation in high-stakes scenarios), the context of the evaluation/auditing itself (e.g., who are using LLM evaluation tools, and how should we design these tools with this context in mind?), and more. The term ''context'' is left open for interpretation, so to encourage diversity in how this this key concept is conceptualized and operationalized by workshop participants. Papers under this theme will be given a dedicated lightning talk session, as well as a special spotlight during the workshop's poster session.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSubmission Types: Position papers, full or in-progress empirical studies, literature reviews, system demos, method descriptions, or encore of published work. The submission will be non-archival.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 42/100 and verified 42/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Future-of-Work Fit. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from heal-workshop.github.io. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2025_chi2025_acm_org_for_attendees_program_at_a_glance_workshops_chi_2025_heal_w"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Unknown events scored on the same eight pillars.