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

Scorecard

Weighted criteria

Planning Basis research deskSection 09 · Page 4 of 13Last updated 3 November 2026
Criterion Weight Strong evidence Weak evidence Proof to request
Incremental baseline and economics 20 Current-law with/without model; overlap removed; costs reconciled One gross savings figure Baseline and cost bridge
Technical substantiation 15 Facts, relevant authorities, dates, limitations and reviewer Unsupported strategy list Redacted technical memo/process
Implementation accountability 15 Named tasks, owners, acceptance and dependencies “We guide you” without execution detail Responsibility map
Sector and situation fit 10 Comparable work with evidence and boundaries Generic owner testimonials Relevant case and reference
Assigned team and capacity 10 Named lead, reviewer and backup with accepted milestones Founder sells, delivery team unknown Team and first-90-day schedule
Full cost and contract clarity 10 All fee lines, exclusions, additional-work approval and exit terms Unpriced dependencies Comparable fee schedule
Cash and partner consequences 8 Timing/downside analysis and owner allocation Practice-wide or deduction-only total Liquidity/partner matrix
Monitoring and renewal value 5 Deliverables, change triggers and next-period test Automatic renewal justified by old claims Review calendar and renewal scope
Security and data control 4 Approved channel, access, retention and third-party controls “Secure” without details Proportionate security summary
Conflicts and representation terms 3 Commercial interests and support boundaries explicit Vague independence/audit protection Disclosures and support schedule
Total 100

The security row is supported by the FTC’s description of covered firms’ written security programmes; the scoring method itself is not an FTC standard. FTC — Safeguards Rule: What your business needs to know

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

  1. FTC — Safeguards Rule: What your business needs to knowwww.ftc.gov