How ratings are reviewed
The owner has approved these evidence requirements and rating anchors for the pilot. Applying them to new scores still requires review and approval. The website shows one current approved CE-N score per bottleneck; candidate scores, earlier versions, and comparison tables remain in the source repository.
Rating anchors
Ratings 2 and 4 require an explicit explanation of what places the evidence between the adjacent anchors. Missing evidence stays unrated; it must not default to 1. Decimal ratings need a documented reason for that precision.
| Axis | 1 | 3 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget | Evidence shows no funded procurement route in the defined use case | Funded trials or limited paid deployments | Repeated paid adoption with identified budget owners across the defined scope |
| Solvability | Evidence shows the defined task is not reliably achieved | Repeatable performance in a restricted setting with stated assistance | Repeatable performance under intended conditions with measured reliability and support needs |
| Value capture | Evidence shows little retained margin or defensibility | A demonstrated route to revenue, with unresolved competition or support cost | Repeated evidence of retained economics and defensibility after full delivery costs |
| Pain | Measured impact is limited within the use case | Measurable operating burden with workable alternatives | Material recurring loss or constraint, with limited acceptable alternatives |
| Timing | Documented prerequisites remain unmet within the stated horizon | Adoption is possible but depends on identified milestones | Procurement conditions and required capabilities are in place within that horizon |
| Maturity | Early experimental evidence | Repeatable pilots in defined settings | Established deployments and support practices across the defined scope |
Evidence about one company or one task cannot automatically justify a high rating for an entire bottleneck. Define the task coverage, counterexamples, and aggregation rule before assigning a new rating.
Required explanation for each rated input
Record the scope and horizon; source and date; evidence class; supporting observation; contradictory evidence; chosen anchor; reason for the rating; and what would change the assessment. Assess evidence confidence separately from commercial attractiveness.
Publication rule
Every replacement score requires an approved assessment and calculation. Until then, the current published score remains in place. Missing evidence stays unknown; a partial company example cannot replace a bottleneck-wide assessment.
Readers can inspect the current calculation and commercial evidence requirements. Review packets and score history are maintained with the source repository.