A certain activity comes with a checklist that defines the performance of someone/something that's executing that actvity.

Broad categories (I prefer proportio divina, variations on it) are stipulated, specific to the nature/type of the activity. Math may help in sorting things out, but not always (I don't know why).

A certain activity comes with a checklist that defines the performance of someone/something that's executing that actvity.

So in your view, it is only a matter of quantities of reflecting certain qualities. Individuals fall in line with these qualities to varying degrees, such as are outlined either expressly or implicitly in their upbringing and through concepts presented to them as normal in family life. For instance, performance in education is measured in the quantity of how well someone can remember certain ideas, how deeply they understand them, and how appropriately they can apply them, each is given a certain alphabetical value A, B, C, D, E, F according to the quantity they have been assigned. All is fixed and deterministic.

This is all well and good for the 'how' of performance evaluation, which we would be safe to expect to be fixed and determined in some way, but it leaves the what and why unanswered. Form seems to dissolve when it is exposed to the light, so we naturally avoid exposing its underlying mechanics. But when imposing such a rigid quantification as we do in our daily lives ("I don't enjoy this or that performer, I performed poorly at work/school/sport") it seems to imply a certain order that begs for justification. For example, a child who despite their best efforts tries to get good grades in the end is still given a failing mark for bad performance. What form are they failing to master, is it the form of academia or the form of the subject that they are trying to learn?

If it is the latter, then would it be unreasonable to suggest that given the near unlimited forms that subjects can take that there might be another form better suited to each failing student, which is merely overlooked by others for convenience? Or are we to conceptualize a world where the forms are more or less arbitrary, and people should take them as a symbol of the vocation and class they have been assigned by society?

Ah! Foucaultish. The examination and the great graduation.
You can also use JS Mill here, regarding conformity (in contrast to individual experimentation).

For example, a child who despite their best efforts tries to get good grades in the end is still given a failing mark for bad performance. What form are they failing to master, is it the form of academia or the form of the subject that they are trying to learn?

If it is the latter, then would it be unreasonable to suggest that given the near unlimited forms that subjects can take that there might be another form better suited to each failing student, which is merely overlooked by others for convenience? — kudos

When we say someone is underperforming or not performing at all, it means that that individual is not meeting the expectations set forth by the institution -- be it the academia, workplace, or competition. It is hard for some people to accept this because it restricts creativity and it is a direct assault to the individuality. Again, let's go back to rules. I cannot stress this enough, the justification for rules lies in feasibility and optimization. The first rule is, there should be rules if something is going to be measured and judged.
So going back to failing -- that individual is failing to meet the expectation set forth by the rules. They're not failing the subject, per se.

When we say someone is underperforming or not performing at all, it means that that individual is not meeting the expectations set forth by the institution – be it the academia, workplace, or competition. It is hard for some people to accept this because it restricts creativity and it is a direct assault to the individuality.

I might ask what are the expectations based upon? I imagine you mean that the answer to the question lies is in the following line,

I cannot stress this enough, the justification for rules lies in feasibility and optimization.

We optimize, but the structures we are optimizing are ultimately for us. OK Jimmy then gets an 'F' in gym class because he fails to catch the ball. Someone might say that catching the ball is a structure optimized for us to perfect our visual and spatial sense in the best way possible (according to experts). This system maximizes happiness. It is the optimal solution to the differential equation of what will cause the least suffering.

So we judge the 'form' to be 'completed' in the performance on the most optimal distributed quantification of quality. The system is judged in a preliminary state, and is left to determine itself in a replication of that state until it is deemed unfit to work. Performance is a type of lottery system of morality. He/she who is raised in the appropriate way, with the correct genetics, at the right time, and under the right conditions to satisfy this equation is levered up to a luxurious life and those who draw the failing ticket drop down to the lower ranks.

Then if it is so determined, isn't performance itself a sort of arbitrary quality since it is so categorically determined by contingencies of a subject's life? One might help themselves to a certain extent, but it is ideal that certain individuals live a tormented existence by their inability to perform at everything because they do not and cannot have the facility to change themselves to satisfy the equation? This I suppose is based on a type of social emulation of nature.

I might ask what are the expectations based upon? I imagine you mean that the answer to the question lies is in the following line, — kudos

It depends on what institution -- for example, workplace, you need to know how to do your assigned role, you should be meeting deadlines, you should show up for work, etc.
And the justification for rules is that there needs to be a standard of measure. If you're being evaluated, they have to have a written guideline on what they're measuring so that, not only they could see whether you're a good fit to the company, or they need to put you on performance improvement plan, or just outright fire you. That also protects them from being sued.

We optimize, but the structures we are optimizing are ultimately for us. OK Jimmy then gets an 'F' in gym class because he fails to catch the ball. Someone might say that catching the ball is a structure optimized for us to perfect our visual and spatial sense in the best way possible (according to experts). This system maximizes happiness. It is the optimal solution to the differential equation of what will cause the least suffering. — kudos

No, it goes both ways. The institution needs to optimize the delivery of learning or instruction (subject matter) they're offering by having rules on performance. This is really not about the greatest happiness and all that jazz. You're misunderstanding.

And the justification for rules is that there needs to be a standard of measure. If you're being evaluated, they have to have a written guideline on what they're measuring so that, not only they could see whether you're a good fit to the company, or they need to put you on performance improvement plan, or just outright fire you.

There is a meaning in which the performance merely states whether or not someone's action met with what they were expected to do by another individual or collective. In the above sense it states that a result was not met and lays no further claim to why, but the word is commonly directed at an individual as a form of criticism. So on what grounds is performance laid against someone and under what justification do we say someone has a performance problem that is their own, and not just one that exists somewhere directed at something?

There is a sense in which performance means not just a binary yes or no, but instead a whole spectrum of different degrees. This implies a transition from quality to quantity that relies on some firm basis that includes some content that is characteristic to it. In the arts we can talk about a concert performance or a ballet performance not having any certified good copy in which to compare it with to see how closely it aligns, and yet we still talk about good and bad performance. Sometimes we're discussing an expressed expectation or even the expectation not being fulfilled, like a magic show.

I'm interested to know would you say in response to the hypothetical situation where someone were poor in performance everywhere they went. If they tried as much as possible to correct it themselves on some grounds they would turn around and say, "This is not my fault." As far as the expectation/reward scenario goes it doesn't seem like this person would ever be qualified to say this; only the authority would have that power.

I'm interested to know would you say in response to the hypothetical situation where someone were poor in performance everywhere they went. If they tried as much as possible to correct it themselves on some grounds they would turn around and say, "This is not my fault." As far as the expectation/reward scenario goes it doesn't seem like this person would ever be qualified to say this; only the authority would have that power. — kudos

Only the authority would have the legitimacy to judge whether it's the participant's fault or the problem is with the rules themselves (assuming no bias, prejudice, or discrimination happening). And this is because that person is being compared to other participants. I don't think we're getting closer to understanding the word evaluation here. One's performance is being compared to others doing the same thing based on some rules.

If I understand you correctly, the form of a subject defines the qualities that determine performance in that subject e.g. mathematics is basically pattern discernment & problem solving and so, performance in math is measured by how good you are at finding patterns and (using them for) problem solving.

A performance is in some ways like a story, a telling of narrative or a viewpoint on a system of space and time. The structure of evaluation – or the basis for translation from quality into quantity – is like the plot of the story or the events we see on its exterior. The story includes our quest: to find an individual with pattern discernment and problem solving from which we cast a narrative that sets the groundwork for how this quest will be represented and embodied. The quest is a test of our right to be an individual in society and an act of the individual itself.

A musical performer, for instance, who can play the right notes at the right time tells us they have developed a concentration and ability to succeed. That they have accomplished the quest which was either directed at or involved ticket-buyers signifies an aspect in ourselves we wish to emulate: the accomplishment. Comparing one musical performer to another ingrains our value determinations into fixed quantitative measures from which we decide the specific ingredients that will characterize this ideal.

In my view, performance – like art – is a reflection of society. In the business world this often means comparing against a certified copy and finding quantitative results, which shows how it reflects that side of social life. Partly shared by itself and us, the reflection has its guiding principle in will-power. If the story involves the plot of shedding individuals who are unfit to be citizens of the nation, as in the individual who cannot perform at anything, that quest can still be accomplished without immoral or unethical rules in the form of suffering.

You've lost me.

Well imagine an instance where you are in a restaurant job, say a dishwasher. Your manager judges your performance based on the dishes you can wash in given time. The manager realizes they cannot judge you specifically based on the result alone, but must watch you to make sure you are doing it right.

They see you fumbling with dishes, observe your behaviour to be agitated, and see that you do not wash nearly as many dishes as your coworkers. They thus judge your performance to be poor in this job. While this sounds like a purely mechanical act of measurement we might also look closer at the grounds for judgement and find holes. Were there distractions, what is this individual's past experience like, how fast do they learn, are there any other ways they contribute to the company, etc.

These other factors are attenuated because the story of the evaluation is in emulation of nature in the belief that in order for the company to operate as a business and succeed it must provide quality and quantity of output. We made a snapshot of this person (or the 'plot') and applied a cultural schematic of what they should be able to correct in themselves versus what they should not be. That scheme is not synthetic, but rather analytic, and thus does not derive from pure principles that can be laid out.

That dishwashers are judged in this way should comply with our practical rationality and our reason. However, the quality and quantity of the judgement is done internally and so is the necessity for it – in itself. Thus the whole process is a type of story that is for itself: a reproduction of our structures of belief and feeling. And the awareness of the process and its internal contradiction is what is brought down upon the individual who can truly perform at nothing.

I'll get back to you (if I can).