Calibration sessions for performance review seem regularly under-used / under-valued. In my experience people generally consider the first two concerns below, but miss the second two:
1) Fairness - Are performance scores fair between team members?
2) High/Low Performers - What actions should be taken at the extremes? (promotions / rotations / improvement plans etc)
3) Framework Review - Is the framework still relevant? Is there anything meaningless / missing in there?
4) Segmented Sense Check - Does a given grouping's average score for a particular expectation marry up with reality/outcome? If not, why not?
If you aren't doing 3), your framework will degrade in meaning over time, particularly in a fast growth business. Calibration provides the best platform to continually and systemically iterate and improve it.
The value of 4) cant be understated, particularly for senior leaders. I've seen top marks across the board for a particular trait or activity that isn't evident on aggregate (e.g. all Senior Engineers have top marks for an expectation regarding support with hiring, but low support with hiring was evident). It might simply have been opaque, or circumstances meant effort didn't match outcome. No matter the reason, this segmentation needs to be done by leaders to ensure the right behaviours are being evaluated and encouraged overall, ultimately so all needs are being met.