6.17 [segment] year-end employee engagement score is [n] in the KPIs but [n] in the people narrative
UK Company B · a UK-listed technology and logistics group · Drafting slip
In brief
The [segment] KPI chart and the sustainability metrics table give the business's year-end employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS) as [n], down from [n], and the 2025 report carries [n] as the 2024 comparative. The people narrative says the same score [wording masked] [n]', the figure the next sentence gives for [segment].
The evidence, as filed
Further pages withheld to protect the company’s identity (three): Annual Report 2025, page 72; Annual Report 2024, page 64; Annual Report 2024, page 65. Their wording or layout could lead back to the company even with names and figures masked; the evidence list below records what each page shows.
Names, figures, dates, logos and any wording that could be searched back to the company are boxed out in grey; the point is highlighted in yellow.
What the report shows, and what the rule requires
| What the annual report shows | What the rule requires |
|---|---|
| What the annual report shows p.20 KPI chart and p.64 metrics table: [segment] eNPS [n] (FY23: [n]); p.65: '[wording masked] [n]'. | What the rule requires One year-end value for [segment] eNPS in all three places ([n], if the table and KPI are right). |
Why it matters
A small inconsistency in a voluntary engagement measure that also features in executive bonus scorecards; readers cannot tell which year-end value is right.
Exposure
None; a drafting correction.
Our workings
the KPI chart and the metrics table show [n] for [segment]; the narrative on p.65 says the score fell to [n] and then gives [n] for [segment]; the 2025 report shows [n] as the 2024 comparative.
Management’s best defence, and our reply
Management could say the narrative describes a reading taken 'towards the end of the year' rather than the [date] measurement in the table. However, the basis of reporting says eNPS is disclosed as at [date], and the narrative gives no other date.
The fix
- Read '... [wording masked] [n]' on p.65, or explain that [n] was measured at a different date.
Evidence relied on
| # | What it shows | Type | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [segment] KPI chart: FY24 eNPS [n], FY23 [n] | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 20 |
| 2 | Metrics table: [segment] eNPS [n] against [n], down 7 | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 64 |
| 3 | People narrative gives [n] for the [segment] year-end score | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 65 |
| 4 | [n] is the [segment] year-end score | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 65 |
| 5 | The 2025 report shows [n] as the 2024 comparative (the 2025 score is [n], with a footnote marker). | Document | Annual Report 2025, page 72 |
Prepared by Pramanex from the company’s published annual reports, without the company’s involvement, to show how an annual report review reads. The company is not named, and nothing on this page is a statement about any identifiable company. Observations are not an audit, review or other assurance engagement, and not legal advice. A regulator-style question is a question, not a conclusion.
Want this on your own annual report, before it is published?
Start with three free findings on your latest published annual report, or talk to us about a fixed-fee pre-publication review.
Your annual report will be in draft before the year-end audit.
Have it read before it is published.
Under NDA, with our reviewer on your insider list under UK MAR.