"Measurable criteria translate qualitative debate into quantitative decisions."
| K-Line | Why Related |
|---|---|
| adversarial-committee/ | What gets scored |
| evaluator/ | Who applies the rubric |
| scoring/ | Generic scoring principles |
| advertisement/ | Objects advertise against criteria |
| designs/mike-gallaher-ideas.md | Mike Gallaher's methodology |
Quick Links:
- Full Specification — complete protocol
A RUBRIC defines measurable quality criteria that translate qualitative discussion into quantifiable scores. The committee knows they'll be scored but doesn't see the evaluator's reasoning.
Without explicit criteria:
- "Good" means different things to different personas
- Debate has no grounding
- Decisions can't be compared across time
- Success is undefined
With rubrics:
- Criteria are explicit and weighted
- Each option scores against the same scale
- Decisions become defensible
- Learning accumulates
rubric:
name: "Client Engagement Evaluation"
criteria:
resource_efficiency:
weight: 0.20
scale: 1-5
anchors:
5: "Fits perfectly within current capacity"
3: "Manageable with some adjustment"
1: "Would require significant new resources"
risk_level:
weight: 0.30
scale: 1-5
anchors:
5: "Minimal risk, strong track record"
3: "Moderate risk, manageable concerns"
1: "High risk, major red flags"Mike Gallaher — RUBRIC-based scoring as bridge between qualitative and quantitative.