The committee should be able to see the recommendation, economics and unresolved risks on one page, with the evidence behind it. Use this template:
| Field | Required entry |
|---|---|
| Decision | Appoint, negotiate, defer, reject or proceed with conditions |
| Property and proposal | Asset, supplier legal entity, proposal version and review date |
| Score | Earned points, evidence coverage and unresolved-weight range |
| Gates | Pass/hold/fail, with responsible reviewer |
| Common-case economics | Owner cash, total fees and required initial capital |
| Downside | Lowest cash balance, additional funding and covenant exposure |
| Critical terms | Approvals, performance tests, cure rights and exit costs |
| Alternatives | Incumbent improvement, other bidder, independent case or no transaction |
| Conditions | Evidence or amendments required, owner and deadline |
| Reopening trigger | Changes that require the decision to be reconsidered |
Maintain an underlying evidence ledger with: criterion; claim; document and page/cell; observation period; evidence grade; rating; reviewer; unresolved issue; financial exposure; next action.
Bottom line: use the scorecard to make the decision explainable. The strongest proposal is the one whose owner economics, execution commitments and contractual protections survive verification—not the one with the most attractive presentation.