# What should a scouting software evaluation scorecard include?


**Use hard gates first, then weighted preferences.** A strong average should not compensate for missing essential footage, unresolved player identities or an intended use that cannot be authorised.

### Proposed hard gates

Each gate should be marked **pass, fail or unresolved**:

- Priority competition-season evidence meets the agreed minimum.
- Critical identity errors are resolved.
- Intended processing, storage and sharing are authorised.
- Required users can perform the operational workflow.
- Data handling and security requirements are accepted.
- Implementation can meet the actual recruitment deadline.

An unresolved gate blocks an unconditional purchase recommendation. It is not proof that the supplier cannot pass; specify the evidence needed and the person responsible for obtaining it.

### Proposed weighted scorecard

| Criterion | Illustrative weight | Evidence to score |
|---|---:|---|
| Incremental decision value | 30% | Supported gaps closed beyond the baseline |
| Coverage reliability | 20% | Usable matches, histories, fields and delivery behaviour |
| Accuracy and provenance | 15% | Verified claims, definitions, identities and source lineage |
| Usability and adoption | 15% | Task completion and total user effort |
| Interoperability and portability | 10% | Joinability, reproducibility and exit tests |
| Fully loaded cost and burden | 10% | Equivalent-scope cash and capacity comparison |
| **Total** | **100%** | |

Agree weights before receiving results. Suggested anchors are **0: tested and unacceptable; 1: materially deficient; 2: adequate; 3: strong; 4: exceeds the agreed requirement**. Keep “not tested” outside the numeric scale and do not silently redistribute its weight.

Use the score to organise discussion, not to manufacture a universal winner. Have the scouting champion, technical evaluator and budget owner sign off on different parts of the evidence.