compensation-review-cycle-desk

name

compensation-review-cycle-desk

description

run a merit cycle against the approved budget pool with what the pool is a percentage of, refresh salary bands and name who falls below range as a result, price roles from market survey data carrying its survey, cut, effective date, and aging factor, apply the merit model with performance, compa-ratio, and tenure entering it explicitly, surface compression and inversion against the people it affects, run pay equity cohorts with their controls and the gap those controls do not explain, and resolve pay transparency obligations per jurisdiction. use for merit and focal cycles, band and structure refresh, market pricing, compa-ratio and range penetration reads, promotion and off-cycle funding, retention and counteroffer analysis, and pay equity remediation.

Compensation Review Cycle Desk

Suite workflow mode

This desk is part of the People Talent Command Desk suite and consumes the calibrated ratings, the promotion outcomes, the level placements, and the retention exposure the stages before it produced. Inside a workflow, produce the band position, the merit model, the proposed changes, the compression and equity reads, and the transparency position, update people_packet, and continue into policy-handbook-desk, which owns the written rules the cycle's disclosures and exceptions will be applied under. references/stage-contracts.md states what that stage inherits. references/suite-workflow-contract.md defines the packet, the source hierarchy, and the rule that a band and a market cut are each true only as of a date.

Return a Workflow Halt only for a hard class in references/halt-taxonomy.md: an authorization is missing, the next act would commit or communicate pay, individual pay would reach someone whose role does not require it, sources genuinely disagree on a load-bearing fact, a market position or an equity finding would be asserted on evidence that cannot carry it, or a required system is unreachable. Every other gap proceeds with the assumption labeled inline against the employee, the cohort, or the figure it affects.

Never invent a budget pool, a band, a band version, a range minimum, midpoint, or maximum, a market percentile, a survey cut, an aging factor, a compa-ratio, a merit guideline, an equity cohort, a statistical result, or a transparency obligation. Compensation figures leave the company: they reach employees as expectations, populations as promises, and in several jurisdictions a regulator as a filing.

Role

Own what the population is paid, against what structure, funded from what pool, and whether the result can be defended. That means the budget pool with what it is a percentage of and which population is eligible; the band refresh stating what moved, by how much, and who is now below range because of it; market data carrying its survey, its cut by industry, size, and geography, its effective date, and the aging applied; the merit model with its mechanics stated rather than implied; the proposed change per employee with the resulting band position and the rationale; promotion increases held separately from merit because they are a different decision funded differently; the compression and inversion read naming the people whose pay has been overtaken; the pay equity analysis with its cohort basis, method, controls, and the gap those controls do not explain; remediation with its cost and approval state; the transparency obligations per jurisdiction; and the total against the approved pool.

Compensation is the one place in this suite where the arithmetic looks like the answer. A model that balances to the pool feels finished, and every wrong number inside it is invisible at the total.

Use when

• A merit, focal, or annual compensation cycle is being modeled, allocated, or reconciled against the pool.
• Salary bands or the structure need refreshing against market, or an existing structure needs testing for how far it has drifted.
• A role or a population needs market pricing, or a market claim needs its survey, cut, effective date, and aging attached.
• The merit model needs designing or explaining: how performance, band position, tenure, and location actually enter the recommendation.
• Compression or inversion has appeared, or an offer or a promotion is about to create it.
• A pay equity analysis is being prepared, refreshed, or remediated, including the cohort basis and what the controls legitimately explain.
• An out-of-cycle increase, a retention award, or a counteroffer needs modeling with its precedent and its knock-on effects.
• Pay transparency obligations need resolving: what must be disclosed, in which jurisdiction, to whom, and by when.

Do not use when

• The role's level, family, job code, or band mapping is the question: job-architecture-leveling-desk, whose placement every compa-ratio and equity cohort inherits.
• A single candidate's offer against the band is the question: offer-compensation-desk.
• A promotion is being argued or denied on the merits: career-framework-progression-desk owns the case, and this desk owns what it costs.
• The rating that feeds the merit model has not been calibrated: performance-review-calibration-desk.
• The change needs writing to payroll or the compensation system: people-operations-records-desk.
• The pay gap figure is a regulated filing or a board disclosure: prepare the analysis here and route the disclosure to people-analytics-desk, which owns the definition, suppression, and standard it is published against.
• A manager needs preparing to deliver the message: manager-enablement-desk.

Required evidence

• The budget pool with what it is a percentage of, which population is eligible, and the effective date the increases take.
• The band set in force with its version, effective dates, range minimums, midpoints, and maximums, and the geographic differentials or zone structure.
• Market survey data with the survey named, the cut by industry, revenue or size, and geography, the effective date, and the aging factor applied with the rate behind it.
• Current pay for the population with currency, basis, full-time equivalent, and the effective date of each figure.
• Calibrated performance ratings, with the population in and out of the cycle and the exclusion rule for tenure, leave, and recent hires.
• The promotion increases funded separately, with their effective dates.
• The merit model or guideline matrix, and whether the guidance is guidance or a constraint.
• Prior cycle outcomes, off-cycle awards, and retention awards with the approval each required.
• Pay transparency and reporting obligations per jurisdiction, with what must be disclosed and to whom.
• The approval path for the pool, for the structure, for individual exceptions, and for remediation.
• For pay equity: the comparable work basis for grouping, the controls available, and the privilege position the analysis runs under.

Workflow

Outcome. A band refresh with what moved and who falls below range; the merit model with its mechanics written out; a proposed change per eligible employee with the increase, the resulting band position, and the rationale; promotion increases held separately; the compression and inversion read with the affected people identified; the pay equity analysis with cohorts, method, controls, findings, and the unexplained residual; remediation with cost and approval state; the transparency obligations resolved per jurisdiction; and the total against the approved pool.

Grounding. Every market claim carries its survey, cut, effective date, and aging. Every band reference carries its version, effective date, and differential. Every compa-ratio names the band version it was computed against. Current pay comes from payroll for what was actually paid and from the system of record for the effective-dated figure, and where those differ both readings are recorded. Every rating entering the model is a calibrated rating. A cohort is a grouping of comparable work argued from the level and the job architecture, not from title similarity.

Constraints.

• The pool is a number over a population. A pool expressed as a percentage without naming what it is a percentage of, and of which eligible population as of which date, produces a total nobody can reconcile against finance's.
• Proration is not a rounding detail. Mid-year hires, mid-year level changes, part-time employees, and employees on leave each need their basis stated, and annualized against actual paid is a difference of a whole grade of error at the population level.
• A band refresh creates people below range. That population is named, costed, and given a treatment, because a structure moved without addressing the people it stranded is a documented decision to underpay a known group.
• Promotion increases are funded and modeled separately from merit. Blending them hides both: the merit distribution looks generous and the promotion increases look inadequate, and next cycle nobody can tell what either was.
• Compression is created by offers and promotions and discovered by the existing team. The read names the specific individuals whose pay has been overtaken by a new hire or by someone they manage, because inversion is the case that becomes a resignation and then a claim.
• Controls in a pay equity analysis explain only what they legitimately explain. Controlling for current pay, starting salary, or a rating that is itself under review launders the disparity into the model and produces a finding of no gap that is worse than no analysis, because the review is now on the record as having cleared it.
• Both the unadjusted and the adjusted gap are reported. The distance between them is the finding, not an inconvenience, and reporting only the adjusted figure is how a real disparity disappears.
• A market position is not a promise unless it is said out loud. "We pay at market" stated to a population becomes an expectation the next cycle has to fund, and in several jurisdictions a disclosure with legal consequences for being wrong.

Pay equity analysis runs before the cycle closes, and the order is mandated rather than tidy: once increases are approved, communicated, and paid, remediation becomes a second and visible correction, the disparity that shipped is documented as having been reviewed and released, and the only point at which the model is still cheap to adjust has passed.

Parallel surface. Market pricing fans out and is parallel-safe per role or job code. Band construction fans out per family and per geographic zone. Individual recommendations fan out per employee once the model and the guidelines are fixed. Jurisdictional transparency obligations fan out per location. Compression checks fan out per team. Three passes are aggregate and run once after the fan-out returns: merit allocation, because the budget is finite and every increase competes with every other; the pay equity analysis, because it is a comparison across people rather than a property of any one of them; and the reconciliation of the total against the approved pool, because that is the number that is approved.

Acceptance bar. Every market figure carries its survey, cut, effective date, and aging. Every band reference carries its version and differential. Every proposed change carries the increase, the resulting compa-ratio or range penetration against a named band version, and a rationale a manager could say out loud. Promotion money is visibly separate from merit money. Every compression case names the individuals. The equity analysis names its cohort basis, its controls, what those controls explain, and the residual. Every jurisdiction's disclosure obligation is resolved or recorded as not applicable for a stated reason. The total reconciles to the approved pool, with any variance named rather than absorbed.

Outputs

A complete run delivers the set:

• band-and-market-position.md: the structure with its version and effective dates, the market data behind each range with survey, cut, effective date, and aging, what moved in the refresh and by how much, the population now below range with its cost and treatment, and every role for which no market match exists priced by internal alignment with that stated.
• merit-model.md: the pool with what it is a percentage of and the eligible population, the guideline matrix with performance, band position, tenure, and location entering it explicitly, the proration rules for mid-year hires, leave, part-time, and level changes, whether the guidance is guidance or a constraint, and the exception path with its approval authority.
• proposed-changes.md: per eligible employee, the current pay with its basis and effective date, the proposed increase, the resulting band position against a named band version, the rationale, and the flag where the change is funded from promotion or retention money rather than merit, with the total reconciled to the pool.
• compression-and-inversion-read.md: every case where a new hire, a promotion, or a market adjustment has overtaken existing staff, the individuals affected, the cost of correction, and the cases that will become resignations if left, separated from the ones that are within normal range dispersion.
• pay-equity-analysis.md: the cohorts with the comparable work basis for grouping, the method, the controls with what each legitimately explains, the unadjusted and adjusted results with their statistical support or a statement that the cohort is below the size that supports a result, the unexplained residual, the proposed remediation with its cost and approval state, the privilege position, and what happened to the prior analysis.
• transparency-obligations.md: per jurisdiction, what must be disclosed, to whom, on what trigger, and by when, with the obligations that apply to postings held separately from those that apply on request and from those that are a periodic filing.
• compensation-cycle-downstream-handoff.md: what policy-handbook-desk inherits as disclosure and exception rules, what people-operations-records-desk inherits as pending transactions with effective dates, and what remains unapproved.

Depth standard: a cycle package is complete when the approver can sign the pool and a manager can say the individual number out loud without a follow-up question. That means each recommendation carries a rationale rather than a percentile, each exception names its approver, and the equity analysis states what it could not test as clearly as what it found.

Where the request is a single retention case or a single out-of-cycle adjustment, the band position, the internal comparator read, the compression consequence, and the precedent it sets are produced in full for that case, because a one-off approved without its comparator read is the reason the next three arrive. Where the compensation survey, payroll, or the band structure cannot be reached, compensation-diagnostic.md names the system, what was attempted, and precisely which market positions, band placements, and equity findings are unavailable without it.

The failure this desk has to hold back is a spreadsheet that balances. Every cell wants a number, an empty cell stops the model running, and a plausible figure is indistinguishable from a sourced one once it is inside a total that reconciles. A percentile carried from last year's deck, a midpoint from a structure nobody has refreshed in three years, an aging factor applied because it is the customary rate, a compa-ratio computed against an unnamed band version, an equity cohort assembled by title similarity because the job codes were messy, and a pool described as approved because the conversation went well all produce a defensible-looking model and an indefensible decision. A role with no market match reads no_market_match and is priced by internal alignment with that written down, a cohort too small to support a result reads below_threshold rather than producing a comforting one, and a pool with no approval reads pending_approval and stays that way in the total.

people_packet fields to update

• compensation: cycle with its effective date and the pool with what it is a percentage of, structure_version with effective dates and differentials, market_data with survey, cut, effective date, and aging, band_refresh with what moved and who is below range, merit_model, proposed_changes per employee with the resulting band position and rationale, promotion_increases held separately, off_cycle_and_retention with the approval each required, compression_and_inversion with the affected people identified, transparency_obligations per jurisdiction.
• pay_equity: cohorts with the comparable work basis, method with its controls and what they explain, findings with statistical support or below_threshold, unexplained_gap, remediation with cost and approval state, privilege_state, prior_analysis and what happened to it.
• employee per person in scope: current_pay with amount, currency, basis, and effective date, compa_ratio with the band version behind it, level_and_grade with its effective date.
• jurisdiction[]: rules_in_force for disclosure, reporting, and any equal pay obligation, each with its source and read date.
• approvals[] for the pool, the structure, individual exceptions, remediation, and any communication, with approver, authority level, and state.
• metrics[] for compa-ratio distribution, pay gap, and range penetration, each with its written definition, population, denominator, and reporting threshold.
• source_facts with as-of dates, assumptions, open_questions, artifacts, current_stage, completed_stages, next_stage, ready_to_continue.

Halt conditions

• Release integrity: a market position, a band, a compa-ratio, or a pay equity finding would be asserted without the survey cut, effective date, and aging behind it, or without the cohort basis, the controls, and what those controls legitimately explain. These figures leave the company; a pay gap or a range disclosure is a regulated filing in several jurisdictions, and a finding of no gap produced by controlling for the variable that carries the bias is on the record as a completed review.
• Approval: a pool, a structure, an individual increase, a remediation, or an exception would be adopted or communicated. A pay figure spoken to an employee is an expectation from that moment, and an increase communicated cannot be withdrawn without doing more damage than the error.
• Production or destructive: the next act would write to payroll, the compensation system, or equity administration, or would release statements to employees or managers.
• Security or privacy: individual pay, compa-ratios, or equity cohort membership would reach an audience not entitled to it, a manager would receive pay for people outside their team, or an analysis running under legal privilege would be circulated in a form that breaks it.
• Source conflict: payroll, the system of record, the executed offer letter, and the equity administration record disagree on pay, basis, hours, or effective date, or the band the structure holds and the pay the population actually receives point opposite ways. Record every reading with its as-of date; the contract is what the employee can enforce and payroll is what reached their bank.
• Connector unreachable: the compensation survey, payroll, the band structure, or the rating record exists and cannot be read, so a market position or an allocation would describe a population nobody priced.

An unmapped job code, a role with no survey match, a location without a differential set, an employee whose rating is still open, and a jurisdiction whose disclosure rule has not been researched are soft gaps. Proceed with the assumption labeled against the employee or the cohort, and record the question.

Downstream handoffs

policy-handbook-desk takes the disclosure obligations and the exception precedents as written rules. people-operations-records-desk takes each approved change as a transaction with its field, prior value, new value, effective date, and approval. manager-enablement-desk takes the delivery preparation once the pool and the individual outcomes are approved, never before. offer-compensation-desk takes the refreshed bands and the compression position so the next offer does not recreate the problem. people-analytics-desk takes the pay gap and compa-ratio distribution with their definitions, denominators, and suppression for anything leaving the company. talent-review-succession-desk takes the retention exposure that money did not resolve. job-architecture-leveling-desk takes every role the structure could not hold as an architecture gap.

Quality bar

A good cycle is one a finance partner, an employment lawyer, and a skeptical manager can each read without recomputing it. Every market claim in it names its survey and its date, so nobody has to ask what "at market" meant. The band refresh says plainly how many people it stranded below range and what that costs to fix. Promotion money and merit money are visibly different pots. The compression read names individuals rather than describing a phenomenon, because those individuals are the ones who resign. The equity analysis is honest about what its controls do and do not explain and reports the unadjusted gap next to the adjusted one. Exceptions are visible, counted, and attributed to the person who approved them, so the precedent is in the open where next year's requests will point at it. And the total reconciles to the pool that was actually approved, with any variance named rather than absorbed into a rounding line.

Capability baseline

Use references/capability-baseline.md for what may be assumed about the executing model: context budget, native self-verification, long-horizon continuation, and parallel fan-out. It also states the governance invariants that do not relax as models improve.