Adjudication Rules#

Individual Participant Decision Model (V7.5)#

Each round, each participant makes individual decisions for their assigned industries (1 or more industries per participant; recommend 2 max). Decisions are refined in cluster huddles, locked at submission, then evaluated through facilitator scoring + peer ranking.

Scoring Logic:

• Explicit Industry Decisions: Scored on the two-layer system below (facilitator + peer)
• Industries Without Explicit Actions: Receive pre-defined base case fallback scores (deterministic, small fixed deltas) from Base Case Fallback Bank

Each industry decision is scored independently in its own context. The 11 industries are: Retail, CPG, Healthcare Provider, Healthcare Payer, Finance, Consulting, Law, Manufacturing, Logistics, Big Tech, B2B/B2C SaaS.

---

Two-Layer Scoring Framework#

Layer 1 — Facilitator Bands (Strategic Fit + Execution Risk)#

Facilitator subtotal: -4 to +4 (or ±6 with red-flag exceptions)

Tail Risk dimension removed in V7.5. Catastrophic-risk concerns are now handled through (a) red-flag triggers that unlock ±3 on Strategic Fit or Execution Risk, and (b) peer ranking, which surfaces backfire risk through "Most likely to succeed" and aggressiveness commentary.

Layer 2 — Peer Ranking#

After all decisions are read aloud, peers rank decisions on three axes:

Peer subtotal: -2 to +2

Round Total#

Strategic Fit (±2) + Execution Risk (±2) + Peer Success (±1) + Peer Impact (±1) = -6 to +6

---

Strategic Archetype (Required on Worksheet)#

Every decision must commit to one of these archetypes. Selection feeds Strategic Fit scoring.

Scoring implication: A well-chosen archetype that aligns with the industry's competitive position is a strong signal for Strategic Fit. A mismatched archetype (e.g., Defensive Hardening when the industry is in Surge condition with clear growth path) drags Strategic Fit toward 0 or -2.

---

Scoring Guidance by Dimension#

Strategic Fit (-2 / 0 / +2; ±3 red-flag)#

Execution Risk (-2 / 0 / +2; ±3 red-flag)#

Execution Risk is driven primarily by the band combination on the worksheet (Spend, Time, Complexity, Dependency, Scale).

---

Band-to-Score Translation Reference#

Quick rule: Each band downgrade (Material → Transformational; 0–3mo → 1–2yr; Low → High; Internal → Ecosystem; Pilot → Global) shifts Execution Risk down ~0.5–1.0.

---

Red-Flag Triggers (Unlock ±3)#

Red-flag triggers fire on band combinations or strategic archetype mismatches. When fired, ±3 scoring is unlocked on Strategic Fit or Execution Risk.

When fired: Stop. Ask participant to reframe (narrower scope / longer timeline / lower spend / add hedges). If reframed credibly → may unlock +3. If not → -2 to -3 on the relevant dimension.

---

Decision Specificity Checklist#

Before scoring, verify the participant has specified:

Scoring rule: If >2 items are missing or archetype is mismatched → ask for clarification before scoring. Do NOT score vague decisions; auto-fallback applies if participant cannot specify.

Note: Quantify only when the move is M&A, major capex, or regulatory/legal commitment. Otherwise, bands + justification suffice. No dollar figures expected on participant worksheets.

---

Facilitation Language#

Challenging a Vague Decision#

"I want to score this Retail decision, but I need specificity. You've checked Process Reinvention as your archetype, but the decision statement says 'deploy AI across stores and online.' I need to know:

• Where are you starting? Which stores or e-commerce functions?
• Your spend band says Material — can you describe what 'material' means for Retail (rough magnitude, not dollars)?
• How will you staff it? Internal team or vendor?
• What's the rollback plan?

Once you answer those, I can score your Retail decision. Note: peer ranking happens after all decisions are read aloud — every decision gets ranked on Success, Impact, and Aggressiveness."

Challenging a Red-Flag#

"I appreciate the ambition. Let me walk you through:

• Your bands: Transformational + Very High complexity + 0–3mo timeline + Ecosystem. That's a red-flag combination.
• Realistically, this either needs a longer timeline (1–2yr) OR a narrower scope (pilot first).

Here's what I can score: A pilot version with realistic timeline. That gives Strategic Fit +1, Execution Risk 0. Peer ranking will determine the rest.

Or, if you accept the bands as written, this scores Execution Risk -3 because the band combination is implausible.

Which direction?"

Accepting a Strong Decision#

"OK, I have all the specificity I need for your Retail decision.

• Strategic Fit: +2 — Process Reinvention archetype is well-chosen; AI demand forecasting addresses your core margin-defense opportunity vs. Amazon.
• Execution Risk: +1 — Bands check out: Material + 3–12mo + Medium + Vendor + Regional. Proven tech, vendor partnership, phased rollout.
• Peer ranking: pending — we'll see where this lands on Success, Impact, and Aggressiveness after all decisions are read."

---

Outcome Narration (Start of R2, R3, R4)#

After scoring is finalized at the end of each round, the facilitator prepares a brief outcome narration to deliver at the start of the next round. This is the engagement layer that connects decisions to consequences.

Outcome Narration Template#

"[Industry]: your [archetype] decision in R[n-1] [worked / partially worked / backfired]. [Specific consequence — margin held / brand backlash / regulatory action / etc.]. Going into this round, you are in [Surge / Tailwind / Steady / Headwind / Crisis].

[For Headwind: One constraint imposed: [Constraint from menu].] [For Crisis: Two constraints imposed: [Constraint 1] and [Constraint 2]. Pure-growth decisions will score auto -2 Strategic Fit.] [For Surge: You may attempt one Transformational-band decision without auto red-flag challenge.]"

Examples#

• "Retail: your Process Reinvention bet on demand forecasting paid off. Margins held, brand intact. Wall Street notices. Going into R2, you are in Tailwind."
• "Healthcare Provider: your aggressive diagnostic AI rollout outran the FDA pathway. Bar association is asking questions; one early adverse event is in the press. You are in Headwind. One constraint imposed: Reputational Pressure. You must address this before submitting your R2 decision."
• "Big Tech: your Customer/Product Bet on enterprise AI services landed strongly. Cloud revenue accelerated. You are in Surge. You may attempt one Transformational-band decision this round without an auto red-flag challenge."

Time budget: ~30–45 sec per industry. Total ~4–5 min for all industries.

---

Industry Health Signals (Cumulative)#

After scoring all explicit decisions and applying base case fallbacks each round:

1. Update cumulative aggregate score per industry (running total across all rounds)
2. Look up Industry Condition from Industry Health Signal Tables
3. Announce conditions at start of next round (folded into Outcome Narration)
4. Apply Headwind/Crisis constraints before participants submit next round's decisions

---

Base Case Fallback Scoring#

After scoring all explicit decisions, apply base case fallbacks to industries that did not receive an explicit action:

1. Identify industries without explicit actions
2. Reference Base Case Fallback Bank
3. Apply pre-defined fallback score (deterministic; ±1 per dimension, plausible defensive move)
4. Announce: "[Industry] falls back to [score] — [brief rationale]."

Fallback scoring is deterministic. Do not negotiate.

---

Scoring Reference Table#

---

Summary Checklist (Per Explicit Decision)#

• Industry identified
• Strategic Archetype selected (1 of 5) and matches decision content
• All 5 bands clear (Spend, Time, Complexity, Dependency, Scale)
• WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/HOW specified
• No red-flag combination (or challenged + reframed)
• No dollar figures expected — bands + justification suffice
• Score Strategic Fit: {-2, 0, +2} (or ±3 if red-flag)
• Score Execution Risk: {-2, 0, +2} (or ±3 if red-flag) — use band translation table
• Wait for peer ranking to apply Success ±1 + Impact ±1
• Aggressiveness ranking is read-only — note for discussion only
• Sum total (range: -6 to +6)
• Post score and brief rationale
• After round: apply base case fallbacks; update cumulative; prepare outcome narration for next round