Perfection Game

Perfection Game is a constructive feedback protocol derived from the Core Protocols by Jim and Michele McCarthy. One person presents a piece of work and then requests structured feedback based on a score, appreciated points, and concrete improvements. The game enforces a strict rule: points can only be deducted if one can explain what would achieve a score of 10. It trains participants to provide useful, precise, and non-defensive feedback, while the recipient practices listening without justifying themselves.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Setting the framework and intention

   2 to 4 min

   The facilitator explains that the goal is not to judge a person but to improve a piece of work through directly actionable feedback. They say: "You will give feedback that adds value: if you deduct points, you must say what would achieve a score of 10." They remind that the protocol applies to a deliverable, an idea, a presentation, or an ongoing production. Participants listen and prepare to discuss what they have observed, not assumed intentions.

   Tip — Emphasise from the start the difference between 'I like / I don't like' and 'here's how I can help you improve'. This prevents the protocol from being perceived as a school grading.

2. 2

   Choosing the work presented and the feedback giver

   1 to 3 min

   The facilitator invites one person to present a piece of work on which they genuinely want to improve. They specify: "Choose something concrete enough for others to formulate observable improvements." If several people wish to present, the facilitator selects one to keep the format brief or announces that the protocol will be repeated. The group checks that they understand what will be evaluated before entering the feedback.

   Tip — Clarify in one sentence what feedback is being requested: content, form, clarity, impact, or the whole. A clear scope greatly enhances the quality of feedback.

3. 3

   Presenting the work

   2 to 8 min

   The person presents their work succinctly, without trying to explain everything or preemptively defend themselves. The facilitator can frame it: "Just present what we need to help you." Other participants observe, take notes, and identify both what works and what they could improve. The goal is to create enough material for useful feedback without turning the exercise into a lengthy project review.

   Tip — If the presentation becomes too long, kindly interrupt: "Thank you, we have enough elements to play the protocol." The Perfection Game gains strength when it remains paced.

4. 4

   Recalling the three-step feedback rule

   2 min

   Before the first feedback, the facilitator explicitly states the mandatory structure. Each feedback giver first states a score from 1 to 10, where the score reflects the value they know they can add; 10 means: "I see nothing to improve." They then say what they liked, followed by what would be needed for them to give a 10, in the form of concrete improvements. The facilitator adds: "We do not criticise without proposing: if you have no improvement idea, you do not deduct points."

   Tip — Write the three steps visible to all: score, liked, to achieve 10. This simple reference avoids vague feedback and allows you to redirect without abruptly interrupting.

5. 5

   Giving feedback in turn

   5 to 15 min

   Each participant gives their feedback strictly following the three steps: "I give you X out of 10; what I liked is...; for me to give a 10, it would need..." The score ranges from 1 to 10 and should correspond solely to the value of improvement that the person knows they can add. If someone scores less than 10, they formulate concrete improvements; if they have no suggestions, they do not deduct points. The recipient listens and simply says "thank you," without explaining, correcting, or justifying.

   Tip — Immediately redirect vague criticisms: "What specifically would it take for you to give a 10?" This question protects the atmosphere and forces the transition from opinion to improvement.

6. 6

   Welcoming feedback without debate

   2 to 4 min

   The facilitator pays particular attention to the posture of the person receiving feedback. They remind: "Your only response during the protocol is thank you; you can sort and decide later." Participants do not engage in debate among themselves and do not try to convince the presenting person. This constraint helps reduce defensiveness and allows feedback to exist as options for improvement.

   Tip — If the person starts to justify themselves, smile and simply say: "Save the energy for improving later; here, you are collecting feedback." This phrase is often better received than a strict reminder of the rule.

7. 7

   Closing and selecting learnings

   3 to 6 min

   When all useful feedback has been given, the facilitator asks the person who received it: "What suggestions do you want to keep or explore first?" They can mention a few elements without having to accept all feedback or justify their choices. The group listens to this sorting as a decision from the owner of the work. The facilitator concludes by reminding that the quality of the Perfection Game is measured by the added value of the proposals, not by the severity of the scores.

   Tip — Ask for just one next action if time is short. This immediately transforms feedback into visible progress and avoids an overly heavy list of improvements.

Variants

• Quick version: one person presents a very short piece of work, then each participant gives feedback in a maximum of one minute while adhering to the three steps. Useful for practising the skill without opening a lengthy discussion.
• Pair version: participants pair up, each presenting a small piece of work or an idea, then receiving a Perfection Game from their partner. This variant increases practice time when the group is large.
• Remote version: the person shares their screen or document, then feedback is given orally in turn. The facilitator keeps the three steps visible in the chat: score from 1 to 10, what I liked, what is needed for me to give a 10.
• Written version: after the presentation, each participant writes their feedback according to the three steps before reading it out loud. This variant helps individuals formulate more precise improvements and reduces hot reactions.