Use a 0–5 merit rating, a separate evidence grade and a fixed 100-point denominator. Do not inflate a thin submission by dividing its earned points only by the criteria it answered.
What do the merit ratings mean?
| Rating | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 0 | Documented fundamental failure against the agreed requirement |
| 1 | Materially inadequate; substantial redesign or renegotiation needed |
| 2 | Partially adequate, but significant weaknesses remain |
| 3 | Meets the stated minimum requirement with bounded, manageable limitations |
| 4 | Strong; exceeds the minimum in relevant, evidenced ways |
| 5 | Decision-ready and unusually robust for this property and assignment |
| U | Unscored because evidence is missing or insufficient—not a finding of poor performance |
Use the criterion-specific anchors below. Award 2 or 4 only when the submission demonstrably falls between the adjacent anchors, and record why.
What evidence is sufficient to award points?
| Grade | Meaning | Scoring treatment |
|---|---|---|
| A — corroborated | Material claims checked against suitable independent records, reconciled source systems or direct owner verification | Score the criterion |
| B — inspectable | Reviewable model, contract, staffing plan or supporting records establish the relevant fact or commitment, with limitations recorded | Score only what the evidence establishes |
| C — asserted | Presentation, testimonial, unexplained output or unsupported improvement claim | Leave the affected criterion unscored pending support |
| U — absent | Required evidence has not been supplied | Leave unscored |
A detailed spreadsheet can establish that a forecast is internally consistent; it does not prove that future demand will materialize. An unsigned term sheet can establish proposed terms; it does not establish an enforceable commitment. Mark both distinctions.
Use the weakest material evidence within a criterion to determine its grade. Do not give an entire criterion grade A because one minor input was independently checked.
Calculation:
- Criterion points = criterion weight × merit rating ÷ 5.
- Earned points = sum of scored criterion points.
- Evidence coverage = sum of weights of scored, A/B-supported criteria.
- Unresolved weight = 100 − evidence coverage.
- Possible completion range = earned points to earned points + unresolved weight.
Example: a submission earning 68 points with 15 points of unresolved weight should be reported as 68 earned points; 85% evidence coverage; possible completion range 68–83. This is not a statistical confidence interval and does not forecast the eventual score.
How should the investment committee interpret the result?
The following are proposed governance thresholds, not industry standards:
| Result | Recommended treatment |
|---|---|
| 80–100 earned points | Priority shortlist, subject to gates, critical-criterion floors and remaining diligence |
| 65–79.9 earned points | Revise, renegotiate or obtain additional evidence before selection |
| Below 65 earned points | Do not select on the present submission; distinguish demonstrated weakness from incompleteness |
| Evidence coverage below 90% | Keep the result provisional; do not present it as an approval-ready ranking |
| Any unresolved gate | Hold unconditional approval regardless of total points |
Require criteria 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 to be scored at least 3/5 before an approval recommendation. Close all material outstanding conditions before signing. If a condition is deliberately accepted, name the approving person and document the financial exposure.