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

Scorecard

Interpret results without false precision

Planning Basis research deskSection 09 · Page 5 of 13Last updated 3 November 2026
Score Editorial interpretation Next action
Below 50 Evidence too weak for a confident comparison Request a revised proposal or pursue another route
50–69 Material gaps Resolve specific weaknesses before contracting
70–84 Plausible candidate Diligence, targeted review and scope negotiation
85–100 Strong documented fit Finalise only if all critical gates are resolved

A score difference of two points may reflect reviewer judgement rather than a real capability difference. Discuss the evidence behind the scores. If two candidates remain close, compare the largest uncertain cost and the most consequential unresolved dependency.

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 →

Sources cited on this page

This page presents the desk’s editorial framework. Read the section sources →