How do you keep suitability separate from evidence quality?
Give every material claim both a fit assessment and an evidence status. A supplier can describe an excellent fit without yet supplying enough evidence to support approval.
- Never display F without K.
| Evidence status | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| E0 — Missing or conflicting | No usable support, or an unresolved contradiction | Two different guest-capacity figures |
| E1 — Supplier-stated | Marketing material or an assertion not yet supported by adequate transaction-specific evidence | Listing says ‘wheelchair accessible’ |
| E2 — Documented | Dated, relevant material supports the claim; provenance and scope are recorded | Current plan, itemised quote or relevant certificate reviewed |
| E3 — Corroborated | E2 support plus an appropriate additional check recorded | Access dimensions demonstrated; permit applicability confirmed by a qualified adviser; payment details authenticated through an independently sourced contact |
E3 is not a universal guarantee. A live walkthrough can corroborate a doorway measurement; it cannot certify the yacht’s regulatory compliance. Record what was checked, by whom, how and when.
For each criterion, list the material supporting claims. Assign the criterion the lowest evidence status among claims necessary to justify its rating. Cosmetic omissions should not downgrade a fully supported material conclusion.
What are the calculations?
Let each criterion have weight w and rating r:
- Points earned on assessed criteria: P = sum(w × r ÷ 5).
- Assessed weight: K = sum(weights with a numeric rating).
- Fit on assessed criteria: F = 100 × P ÷ K.
- Unassessed weight: 100 − K.
- Mechanical full-score range: P to P + (100 − K).
- Documented evidence coverage: sum of weights graded E2 or E3.
When K = 0, display not assessable, not a score. The mechanical range shows the effect of unresolved ratings; it is not a probability interval and does not capture uncertainty in supplier claims.
Never display F without K. An 87/100 fit score on only 72% of the criteria is not equivalent to 87/100 on a fully assessed proposal.
What decision thresholds should the desk use?
These are suggested internal controls, not market standards:
| Status | Proposed rule |
|---|---|
| Eligible for principal approval | Every mandatory check passes; all criteria assessed; fit at least 85; documented coverage at least 90%; remaining evidence gaps explicitly accepted |
| Conditional shortlist | No established mandatory failure; fit 75–84, or an otherwise strong proposal needs defined improvements |
| Hold | Any mandatory check unresolved, a material criterion unassessed, or insufficient evidence for commitment |
| Reject/rework current proposal | An unremedied mandatory failure, or fit below 75 under the agreed brief |
The principal may revise preferences or approve additional spending. That creates a revised brief and a new assessment—not a waiver of lawful operation or payment authentication.
Sources cited
This page does not link to an external source directly.
All sources for Scorecard