A performance review asks you to explain months of work. The large milestones may be easy to remember; the decisions, support work, and smaller improvements often are not.
OGAD (Off Grid AI Desktop) Pro on Mac can help you return to activity saved after you enable capture. Review the retained history, check your contributions against actual sources, and use a local chat model to organise a review draft. The evidence you select should show what you did and what changed.
What would you like to do with Off Grid AI?
Have a feature or use case you would like us to support? Tell us what you want to do and which device you use.
Write to support@offgridmobileai.co, join our Slack community, or talk to us on Reddit.
This is a preparation workflow for your own account of work. Captured activity is not a productivity score, a complete measure of effort, or a fair way to rank other people.
What should you collect for a useful review?
Collect contributions with context and evidence. A list of applications used or hours observed does not explain the value of the work. Look for a problem you helped resolve, a decision you improved, or a deliverable you can verify.
Suppose you helped a small team prepare a release. You reviewed the handover, found missing checks, coordinated a decision, and documented an unresolved risk. Some of that work may matter even if you did not own the final release.
| Review element | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Contribution | The action you actually took |
| Context | The problem or goal it related to |
| Evidence | A deliverable, decision, or other checked source |
| Outcome | What changed, within the limits of the evidence |
| Learning | What you would repeat or improve |
Keep your role precise. Supporting a decision is a contribution, but it should not become a claim that you made it alone.
How does the saved history help?
Mac Pro capture can preserve sampled activity and generate observations after you opt in. Day provides a journal and timeline; Search can help locate retained material; Replay can show saved screen context.
Activate Pro, prepare local models, and review Settings > Setup & health > System permissions. Choose Resume capture in Replay or Capture settings for work you want retained. Check the visible Capturing status and use Pause capture when needed.
Initial app, model, and Pro setup can need a connection. This guide uses the Mac Pro workflow, with local analysis while Pro access is available. Desktop release.
The record only covers material captured, processed, and retained. Work done away from the computer or during paused periods needs your own notes. Enabling capture later cannot reconstruct earlier uncaptured activity.
How do you review a longer period without getting lost?
Work by project or month rather than trying to summarise everything at once. Begin with known goals and use the history to find supporting events.
- Open Day and inspect Journal and Timeline for relevant dates.
- Search for distinctive project names, document terms, or decisions.
- Open useful results and check the source context.
- Verify outcomes in the actual work product or approval record.
- Save a short evidence note for each contribution.
Use a consistent format: date, project, your action, outcome, source, and uncertainty. That keeps a small but meaningful contribution from disappearing beneath a long list of activity.
A generated journal may say you reviewed a document. It does not prove that the document was approved or that the review changed the result. Check those claims separately.
How do you organise the draft around review criteria?
Use the actual criteria supplied by your organisation or manager. If there is no formal framework, choose a few clear themes such as delivery, collaboration, problem solving, and learning.
Give the local model your checked notes and the criteria:
Organise these verified contributions under the supplied review criteria. Keep my role and the source of each claim visible. Separate completed outcomes from work in progress. Do not invent metrics, ownership, praise, or impact that the notes do not establish.
Review the grouping. One contribution may support several themes, but repeating it under every heading can make the draft sound larger than the evidence warrants.
For the release example, finding missing checks may demonstrate problem solving. Coordinating the decision may show collaboration. Explain the actual work rather than relying on labels alone.
How should you describe impact when you lack a metric?
Describe the observable result and its scope. A checked process document, a clarified decision, or a resolved ambiguity can be useful without a percentage attached.
Ask the model to distinguish three things:
- What the source establishes.
- What you intended the work to improve.
- What would need more evidence before being called a result.
For example, “Added the missing handover checks to the approved release checklist” is a verifiable output. “Prevented all release failures” is a much broader claim that the same evidence does not support.
If you do use a metric, keep the source, period, and calculation available. Captured screen time is not a substitute for a business result or an exact record of effort.
How do you include difficulties and learning?
A balanced review explains what did not work and what you changed. Use a specific example with context rather than a generic sentence about wanting to improve communication.
Try:
From these notes, identify one situation where my approach needed improvement. Draft a short reflection with what happened, what I learned, and one concrete change I can test. Do not assign blame or invent another person's opinion.
Check that the proposed lesson is yours to own. You can ask the model for options, but choose a next step that matches your actual responsibilities and capacity.
Keep sensitive details out of the final review when they are unnecessary. Your preparation notes can contain source context that does not belong in the document you share.
What should you check before sending the review?
| Check | What to confirm |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | Every contribution has a checked basis |
| Ownership | The wording reflects your actual role |
| Status | In-progress work is not described as finished |
| Balance | The draft includes learning and limits |
| Relevance | Each example supports a review criterion |
Read the draft in your own voice. Remove inflated language and keep specific actions. Ask the model to flag unsupported claims if useful, but perform the final check yourself.
This workflow drafts text. It does not submit a review, contact your manager, or assess other employees.
Recover one contribution you might otherwise forget
Download OGAD and use Mac Pro capture for the work you choose to retain. Review one project, verify a contribution, and add it to a short evidence log.
Keep the models local for processing after setup. Sharing the final review is a separate action. The useful result is a clearer, more accurate account of your work, with enough detail to support a meaningful discussion.
Top comments (0)