# How should the club calculate and interpret scores?


**Score evidence, not presentation.** Use this common scale:

| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| **0** | Tested and unusable for the stated requirement |
| **1** | Materially below requirement |
| **2** | Partially meets requirement; significant limitation remains |
| **3** | Meets the pre-agreed minimum acceptance conditions |
| **4** | Exceeds those conditions with demonstrated operational benefit |
| **5** | Materially exceeds them, with repeatable evidence across relevant test cases |
| **U** | Unknown or not tested; not equivalent to a demonstrated failure |

**Weighted points = criterion weight × rating ÷ 5.**

**Total score = sum of weighted points, out of 100.**

For a provisional total, give U no points while retaining the full denominator. Label the result a **lower-bound score**, show the unknown weights separately, and do not treat it as a final ranking. Never inflate a score by removing untested criteria from the denominator.

Record an evidence label alongside each rating:

- **Observed:** inspected or reproduced in an authorised club test.
- **Documented:** supported by the relevant contract, specification or reviewed assurance document.
- **Supplier-claimed:** asserted but not verified for the club’s scope.
- **Unknown:** evidence unavailable or not tested.

Use observed evidence for operational performance and the relevant documented evidence for contractual requirements. A supplier’s public coverage page alone cannot earn an observed-coverage score. A successful export alone cannot earn a licence-fit score.

### How should reviewers resolve disagreement?

Have two reviewers score independently before discussion. Reconcile differences greater than one rating point by returning to the evidence and acceptance condition; retain both initial ratings and the final rationale.

For numerical measures, define score boundaries before the trial. For judgement-based measures, require an evidence reference and an explanation of why the answer is sufficient to change—or support—the next recruitment action.

### What decision bands should the club use?

These are proposed decision rules, not market benchmarks:

| Result | Recommended action |
|---|---|
| **Any gate fails** | Reject the proposed scope or renegotiate and retest it, regardless of score |
| **Any gate is on Hold, or a criterion remains U** | Continue diligence; no final approval |
| **80–100, all gates pass** | Strong candidate for approval, subject to the budget, loss register and implementation plan |
| **70–79, all gates pass** | Negotiate, narrow scope or run a targeted follow-up before committing |
| **Below 70** | Do not approve on the present evidence; consider a different scope or the baseline option |

Also require at least **3/5 for decision contribution, coverage and accuracy**, plus any other criterion designated mandatory in the brief. Meeting minimum conditions everywhere produces 60/100: this framework deliberately requires more than basic adequacy for a strong purchasing recommendation.