The assistant professor was shocked. For six years on the tenure track, all the assessments of his work had been positive--or at least not negative. His annual evaluations rated him consistently good or better on teaching, service, and research. The sparse written comments from his chair were in the vein of "you are doing what you need to do." The promotion-and-tenure committee had easily approved his third-year review--allegedly the crucial hurdle on the path to tenure. Informal measures also indicated his tenure case was a go. Senior faculty members made encouraging comments: "Looks good" and "Don't worry, you are doing fine." His faculty mentors waved no red flags. Several even implied--or seemed to imply--that he was a "sure thing" for tenure. The coda to this uplifting tale? A split departmental vote granting him tenure, followed by a tepid letter of support from the chair, capped off by denial from the upper administration. What happened to the sure thing? Sometimes, unfortunately, departmental reviews and faculty mentoring are cryptic or unhelpfully positive. The senior professors choose to put off the ugly task of negative criticism until it can be rendered anonymously through a tenure vote. In this article, the author discusses steps assistant professors can take to make the feedback they are getting reliable.