File 11

Scoring and Prioritization

Scoring makes triage reproducible; it does not turn uncertain public evidence into certainty. Preserve raw evidence, component scores, reviewer notes, and overrides.

1. Why score

2. Finding quality score

Score 0–5:

11.2-finding-quality-score.t1
Dimension	0	3	5
Evidence	no support	credible single source/corroborated secondary	E4–E5, reproducible and current
Entity resolution	unresolved	probable match	exact legal/domain/person-role match
Recency	obsolete/unknown	relevant but aging	current for the decision/window
Directness	rumor	proxy	direct observation/measurement
Independence	copied origin	uncertain origins	independent origins
Contradiction check	none	basic check	strong alternatives actively tested

FindingQuality = weighted mean of dimensions × 20

Recommended weights: Evidence 30%, Entity resolution 15%, Recency 15%, Directness 15%, Independence 10%, Contradiction 15%.

3. Opportunity priority score

Score 0–5:

11.3-opportunity-priority-score.t1
Dimension	Weight	Meaning
Evidence strength	15%	quality of the underlying finding
Economic materiality	15%	plausible contribution margin, cash, risk, or capacity effect
Service fit	15%	ability of the offered service to address the mechanism
Executive relevance	10%	connection to named role and public priority
Strategic differentiation	10%	moves beyond table-stakes improvement
Time to useful evidence	10%	how quickly a test can confirm/refute value
Reversibility	5%	ability to stop or recover
Capacity fit	5%	likely operational feasibility
Urgency	5%	cost/risk of delay or time-bound window
Novelty without intrusiveness	5%	non-obvious but appropriate
Data sufficiency	5%	inputs available to size or test

BaseOpportunityScore = weighted sum × 20
RiskAdjustedPriority = BaseOpportunityScore × ConfidenceFactor × (1 − RiskPenalty)

Use ConfidenceFactor 0.4/0.6/0.8/0.95 for low/moderate/high/very-high evidence. RiskPenalty ranges 0–0.6 and includes legal, privacy, security, execution, brand, and dependency risk.

Hard gates override the numeric score:

unresolved identity;
prohibited source/use;
sensitive-personal-data dependence;
exploit or credential dependence;
misleading financial claim;
no plausible service-to-mechanism fit.

4. Authority score

Use this outreach suitability rubric. Positive terms score 0 = absent/poor and 5 = strong. Penalty terms score 0 = none and 5 = severe.

AuthorityScore =
  EvidenceSpecificity
+ BusinessRelevance
+ EconomicMechanismClarity
+ Novelty
+ UsefulnessOfNextStep
+ RespectfulBoundary
− Intrusiveness
− UnsupportedCertainty
− RequiredReadingFriction

An outreach draft is ineligible unless all hard gates pass:

EvidenceSpecificity ≥ 3 and every factual hook meets the evidence-use matrix;
BusinessRelevance ≥ 3 for the recipient's verified remit;
RespectfulBoundary ≥ 4;
Intrusiveness ≤ 1;
UnsupportedCertainty ≤ 1;
RequiredReadingFriction ≤ 2;
AuthorityScore ≥ 18;
jurisdiction, contact provenance, suppression, and human approval gates pass.

The score never overrides a legal, privacy, security, evidence, or opt-out block.

5. Lead qualification score

Lead qualification is company/opportunity fit—not personal profiling.

11.5-lead-qualification-score.t1
Dimension	Points
target fits chosen industry/region/size constraints	0–15
public signal maps to offered service	0–20
evidence quality	0–15
plausible materiality	0–15
timing/trigger	0–10
responsible executive role resolved	0–10
lawful contact route and basis	0–10
small useful diagnostic can be offered	0–5

Suggested bands:

80–100: research-complete, human outreach review;
60–79: nurture or resolve missing evidence;
40–59: monitor;
under 40: archive/disqualify.

Do not award points for personal wealth, family information, protected traits, vulnerability, or private contact details.

6. PR/narrative scoring

For each narrative theme:

NarrativePressure = Prevalence × Velocity × SourceDiversity × Credibility
                  × StakeholderRelevance × Persistence × Propagation

Score components on defined ordinal scales and report raw counts. Include response quality and rebuttal evidence separately; do not label a narrative “misinformation” merely because it is adverse.

Suggested propagation states:

N0 isolated;
N1 repeated within one source/community;
N2 crosses communities/platforms;
N3 reaches trade media/influencers;
N4 reaches mainstream/regulatory/investor discourse.

7. Technical-debt scoring

Passive signals cannot establish exploitability. Score the business diagnostic opportunity:

TechnicalPriority = Evidence × AssetCriticality × BusinessDependency
                  × Persistence × PropagationPotential
                  × (1 − ExistingControlEvidence)

Use Unknown for unobservable controls. Do not turn absence of public proof into proof of absence.

8. Economic model confidence

11.8-economic-model-confidence.t1
Model class	Inputs	Label
M0	no volume/value inputs	not estimable
M1	benchmarks/assumptions only	illustrative scenario
M2	one reported/measured anchor plus benchmarks	anchored scenario
M3	several target-reported/measured inputs	planning estimate
M4	reconciled internal financial/operational data	decision model
M5	controlled result/finance-confirmed	validated realized value

External prospect audits are normally M0–M2. Outreach should state ranges only when useful and clearly labeled.

9. Portfolio rules

Do not return a single ranked list that favors quick fixes. Create horizons:

11.9-portfolio-rules.t1
Horizon	Typical state	Objective
Now	C0–C1	resolve uncertainty and capture low-risk value
Next	C1–C2	coordinate a material improvement
Build	C2–C3	change architecture/process/governance
New curve	C4	test a new unit of value/category thesis

Select at least one measurement-first option when evidence is below E4 or model class below M3.

10. Override log

item_id: ""
automated_score: 0
reviewer_score: 0
override_reason: ""
evidence_added_or_removed: []
risk_gate: ""
reviewer: ""
reviewed_at: ""

No silent score changes.

11-scoring-prioritization.md · 185 lines · 6500 bytes · SHA-256 902a1b676140183b

Raw Markdown Parsed blocks (JSON) All documents