For the business. For the owner. Before the commitment.Our independence, explained

Section 09 of 12 / Prepare to choose

Scorecard

Compare three advisers against a common scope and documented evidence.

13 pages7 sources citedLast updated 3 November 2026
Planning Basis

The adviser evidence scorecard.

Use a common scope. Change weights before reviewing candidate scores.

20%15%15%10%10%10%8%5%
1. Incremental baseline and economics (20%)2. Technical substantiation (15%)3. Implementation accountability (15%)4. Sector and situation fit (10%)5. Assigned team and capacity (10%)6. Full cost and contract clarity (10%)7. Cash and partner consequences (8%)8. Monitoring and renewal value (5%)9. Security and data control (4%)10. Conflicts and representation terms (3%)
Evidence criterion / weight
Five gates — a total never overrides a failed or unresolved gate
Identity and standing
Technical review
Execution
Affordability and authority
Information handling
Proof: Baseline and cost bridge
Proof: Redacted technical memo/process
Proof: Responsibility map
Proof: Relevant case and reference
Proof: Team and first-90-day schedule
Proof: Comparable fee schedule
Proof: Liquidity/partner matrix
Proof: Review calendar and renewal scope
Proof: Proportionate security summary
Proof: Disclosures and support schedule

Candidate A

0.00/100

10 ratings remain — provisional total

Written evidence: 0/10 criteria rated at least 2. Bands: <50 · 50–69 · 70–84 · 85–100.

Unresolved gates — evidence required

Candidate B

0.00/100

10 ratings remain — provisional total

Written evidence: 0/10 criteria rated at least 2. Bands: <50 · 50–69 · 70–84 · 85–100.

Unresolved gates — evidence required

Candidate C

0.00/100

10 ratings remain — provisional total

Written evidence: 0/10 criteria rated at least 2. Bands: <50 · 50–69 · 70–84 · 85–100.

Unresolved gates — evidence required

Editorial weights and bands, not validated predictors of savings, compliance or service quality. Missing ratings contribute zero to the provisional total. Keep earlier downloads when re-scoring.

Read the rating standards →

Inside this research

Research’s self-assessment / 10
9buyer fit
9depth
9search terms
8sources