Assume the evidence caps support the displayed ratings, including repeated evidence for the internal team’s economics rating of 5.
| Criterion | Weight | Low-fee drafting | Managed production | Established internal team |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accepted-file economics | 20 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Technical quality | 20 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Traceability | 12 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Authority and governance | 10 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Integration and export | 10 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Security and privacy | 8 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Usable-file time | 7 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Surge and continuity | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Commercial clarity | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Implementation and people | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Weighted total / 100 | 100 | 51.0 | 78.8 | 81.4 |
In this example:
- Low-fee drafting is not eligible for scale: technical quality and traceability are below the minimum ratings, regardless of its invoice price.
- Managed production merits further controlled testing: it is credible, but the surge evidence and overall result do not yet support expansion under the proposed bands.
- The internal team remains a viable choice: it has the strongest evidence-backed score and lowest accepted-file cost in the separate illustrative cost table. Its review speed and surge limitations still require action.
The 2.6-point gap between the latter options should not be treated as scientific precision. Reassess uncertain ratings and determine whether service improvements justify the incremental cost. Record what new evidence would change the decision.