Band-to-Score Quick Reference
Band-to-Score Quick Reference#
PRINT THIS. Laminate. Keep at hand. Reference during scoring (target: 60–90 sec/decision).
V7.5 Scoring Stack:
- Facilitator (per decision): Strategic Fit (-2/0/+2) + Execution Risk (-2/0/+2); ±3 only on red-flag
- Peer (per decision): Most likely to succeed (top +1, bottom -1) + Greatest impact (top +1, bottom -1) + Most aggressive (read-only)
- Round total: -6 to +6
- Tail Risk dimension removed in V7.5; absorbed into red-flag triggers + peer ranking
1. FIVE INPUT BANDS (Worksheet Fields 4–8)#
| Band | Options |
|---|---|
| Spend/Commitment | Absorbable / Material / Transformational / Existential |
| Time-to-Impact | 0–3 mo / 3–12 mo / 1–2 yr / 2+ yr |
| Execution Complexity | Low / Medium / High / Very High |
| Dependency | Internal / Vendor / Regulator-Union / Ecosystem |
| Scale | Pilot / Regional / National / Global |
2. FIVE STRATEGIC ARCHETYPES (Worksheet Field 2 — Mandatory)#
| Archetype | Description |
|---|---|
| Labor Reshape | Workforce, talent, augmentation, headcount restructuring |
| Process Reinvention | Workflows, operational systems, end-to-end redesign |
| Customer/Product Bet | New products, propositions, channels, markets |
| Defensive Hardening | Compliance, security, capital discipline, risk reduction |
| Strategic Swing | M&A, partnership, platform play, big bet |
Use during scoring: Does the chosen archetype match the decision content? Is it well-fit to the industry's competitive position? Mismatched archetype → drag on Strategic Fit.
3. BAND-TO-SCORE TABLE (Drives Execution Risk)#
| Spend | Time | Complexity | Dependency | Scale | Typical Exec Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absorbable | 0–3mo | Low | Internal | Pilot | +2 |
| Absorbable | 0–3mo | Medium | Internal | Regional | +1 |
| Material | 0–3mo | Low | Internal | Regional | +1 |
| Material | 3–12mo | Medium | Internal | Regional | 0 |
| Material | 3–12mo | High | Vendor | National | -1 |
| Transformational | 3–12mo | Medium | Vendor | National | -1 |
| Transformational | 1–2yr | High | Regulator | National | -2 |
| Transformational | 2+yr | Very High | Ecosystem | Global | -2 |
| Existential | 2+yr | Very High | Ecosystem | Global | -3 |
Quick rule: Absorbable + 0–3mo + Low = +2. Each band downgrade shifts score down ~0.5–1.0.
4. RED-FLAG TRIGGERS (Unlock ±3 Exception)#
| Red-Flag | Band Trigger | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Timeline Misalignment | Global + 0–3mo (no pilot) | Offer narrower scope or +3mo timeline |
| Overcommitted Complexity | Transformational + Very High + Ecosystem + <12mo | Propose pilot phase; lower complexity |
| Regulatory Constraint | Healthcare + no FDA plan; Finance + no fair-lending; Law + no bar compliance | Push back hard; require safeguards |
| Unhedged Catastrophe | Autonomous + no rollback; AI legal work without attorney review | Refuse to score until hedged |
| Existential Bet | Existential + 2+yr + Very High + Ecosystem | Reframe as narrower scope OR accept -3 |
| Archetype Mismatch in Crisis | Industry in Crisis picks pure-growth archetype | Auto -2 Strategic Fit |
When fired: Stop. Ask participant to reframe (narrower scope / longer timeline / lower spend / hedges). Reframed credibly → unlock +3. Not reframed → -2 to -3.
5. SCORING DECISION TREE (60–90 sec per decision)#
- Specificity check (5 sec): Industry / Archetype / WHO / WHAT / WHERE / WHEN / HOW + bands clear?
- If >2 missing OR archetype mismatch → ask for clarification, don't score yet
- Red-flag check (5 sec): Any combo from Section 4?
- If YES → challenge; reframe or accept ±3
- Score (50 sec):
- Strategic Fit: -2 / 0 / +2 (or ±3 on red-flag)
- Execution Risk: -2 / 0 / +2 (or ±3) — use band table
- Wait for Peer Ranking (after step 7+8 of round flow):
- Most likely to succeed: top +1, bottom -1, others 0
- Greatest impact: top +1, bottom -1, others 0
- Aggressiveness: read-only
- Post total: "Strat Fit + Exec Risk + Peer Success + Peer Impact = [n]/6"
6. WORKED EXAMPLES#
Example 1: Retail Demand Forecasting (Process Reinvention)#
Decision: "Deploy AI demand forecasting to 500 stores; existing vendor; 90 days." Archetype: Process Reinvention ✓ (workflows + operational systems redesign) Bands: Absorbable + 0–3mo + Low + Vendor + Regional
Scoring:
- Strategic Fit +2: Captures margin-defense opportunity vs. Amazon; well-chosen archetype.
- Execution Risk +1: Bands suggest +1 (proven tech + vendor partnership).
- Peer ranking pending (will resolve after read-aloud + ranking).
Subtotal so far: +3/4 from facilitator. Peer ranking will adjust ±2.
Example 2: Healthcare FDA Diagnostic AI (Customer/Product Bet)#
Decision: "Initiate FDA pre-submission for radiology AI; 12-month clinical validation; will engage FDA early." Archetype: Customer/Product Bet — borderline (could also be Process Reinvention; new clinical product justifies the choice) Bands: Material + 3–12mo + Very High + Regulator + Pilot
Red-flag check: Regulator-dependent + 3–12mo. Plausible because participant is proposing pre-submission + validation (not full approval). FDA pre-submission is a real pathway.
Scoring:
- Strategic Fit +1: Strategic value (clinical AI is high-impact); archetype defensible.
- Execution Risk -1: Regulator + Very High complexity is hard, but pre-submission + pilot scope mitigates.
- Peer ranking pending.
Subtotal: 0/4 from facilitator. Peer ranking will adjust.
Example 3: Law AI Brief Drafting (Process Reinvention)#
Decision: "Deploy AI-assisted brief drafting across litigation practice group; mandatory attorney review on all output; bar rule compliance assessment per jurisdiction." Archetype: Process Reinvention ✓ Bands: Material + 3–12mo + High + Regulator (bar rules) + Regional
Red-flag check: Bar rules dependency + Regional + attorney review = plausible. The mandatory attorney review is the key safeguard.
Scoring:
- Strategic Fit +1: Addresses client efficiency demands; bar compliance proactive.
- Execution Risk -1: Bar rule complexity + High complexity, offset by attorney review + limited scope.
- Peer ranking pending.
Subtotal: 0/4. Peer ranking decides direction from here.
7. PEER RANKING REFERENCE (Step 8 of Round Flow)#
After all decisions are read aloud:
| Step | Action | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Each participant privately writes rankings on Success and Impact (1 = best). Cannot rank own industry. | ~3 min |
| 2 | Facilitator publicly polls "Most aggressive" (show of hands), tally on flip chart | ~2 min |
| 3 | Facilitator aggregates Success + Impact rankings; identify top and bottom | ~1 min (parallel) |
| 4 | Open discussion of rankings ("Why top? Why bottom?") | ~10 min |
Score impact:
- Most likely to succeed: top of group +1, bottom -1, all middle 0
- Greatest impact: top of group +1, bottom -1, all middle 0
- Most aggressive: read-only — discussion fuel, no score
8. INDUSTRY WATCH-OUTS (Calibrate Strat Fit + Watch for Red-Flags)#
| Industry | Strat Fit Typ | Exec Risk Typ | Watch For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retail | 0 | 0 | Aggressive personalization → brand backlash; >15% labor cut + no transition |
| CPG | 0 | 0 | DTC bypass → retailer retaliation; AI content + no review |
| Healthcare Provider | 0 | -1 | Diagnostic AI + no FDA pathway; physician adoption gaps |
| Healthcare Payer | +1 | 0 | >70% auto-denials + no human review; MLR limits |
| Finance | +1 | -1 | Autonomous trading + no circuit breakers; AI underwriting + no bias audit |
| Consulting | +1 | 0 | >40% junior cuts + no pipeline; client confidentiality gaps |
| Law | +1 | -1 | AI work + no attorney review; bar compliance; >30% associate cuts |
| Manufacturing | 0 | 0 | >30% headcount cut + no union/severance |
| Logistics | +1 | 0 | Full AV fleet + no regulatory pathway; driver/union resistance |
| Big Tech | +2 | +1 | Antitrust scrutiny; AI lab/model dev OUT OF SCOPE |
| SaaS | +1 | 0 | Pricing change + <6mo + no customer plan |
9. COMMON ERRORS TO AVOID#
| Error | Fix |
|---|---|
| Vague band mapping | Require all 5 bands clear before scoring |
| Archetype mismatch (worksheet says Defensive Hardening but decision is M&A) | Ask participant to reconcile or change archetype |
| Band override ("Exec Risk +2" but bands suggest -1) | Bands drive Exec Risk score, not preference |
| Missing red-flag (Global + 0–3mo slips through) | Reference Section 4 every time |
| Conflating industries | Each industry scored on its own criteria |
10. SCORING RANGE INTERPRETATION#
| Round Total | Interpretation | Action |
|---|---|---|
| +5 to +6 | Strong (70%+ success expectation) | Accept; reinforce in outcome narration |
| +1 to +4 | Acceptable (50–70% success) | Accept; monitor |
| -2 to 0 | Weak | Reflect mixed result in next outcome narration |
| <-2 | Poor; red-flag fired | Reflect material setback in next outcome narration |
PRINT. LAMINATE. SCORE BRISKLY. PEERS DRIVE THE LEARNING.