Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington.

However, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence.

Of the dismissed prosecutors who have spoken publicly, all have said they were given no reason for their dismissal. At first, most appeared willing to leave quietly with the understanding that they were presidential appointees who could be replaced at any time.

But their willingness to step down without complaint changed abruptly when Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, said at a Senate hearing earlier this month that most of the dismissals were carried out to correct performance problems, according to associates of several prosecutors.

In recent days, several of the prosecutors have described conflicts with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending political corruption investigations as a possible factor in their firings. Justice Department officials have denied such issues were a factor.

One of the most glowing evaluations was given to H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas, who was asked to leave last summer. Mr. Cummins was replaced temporarily by J. Timothy Griffin, a military and civilian prosecutor who also had close ties to Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser. Mr. Griffin has since withdrawn his name from consideration as Mr. Cummins’s permanent successor.

A report dated Jan. 23-27, 2006, said, “United States Attorney Cummins was very competent and highly regarded by the federal, judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies.” It said Mr. Cummins’s office had a “well-managed” antiterrorism program and “very successful” counternarcotics efforts.