Band-to-Score Quick Reference
Band-to-Score Quick Reference#
PRINT THIS. Laminate. Keep at hand during live play. Reference during scoring decisions (60-120 sec/decision).
V7.4 Changes: 11 industries (up from 10 personas/5 sectors). Individual participant model (5-11 participants, each selects 1+ industries). One decision worksheet per industry per round.
1. FOUR BANDS & THEIR OPTIONS#
| Band | Options |
|---|---|
| Spend/Commitment | Absorbable | Material | Transformational | Existential |
| Time-to-Impact | 0-3 months | 3-12 months | 1-2 years | 2+ years |
| Execution Complexity | Low | Medium | High | Very High |
| Dependency | Internal | Vendor | Regulator/Union | Ecosystem |
| Scale | Pilot | Regional | National | Global |
2. BAND-TO-SCORE TIER SYSTEM (Execution Risk Primary)#
Use this table to map band combinations -> Execution Risk score:
| 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.
3. RED-FLAG BAND COMBINATIONS (+/-3 Exception Scoring)#
When these band combos appear: Challenge the participant. Unlock +/-3 scoring.
| 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 | Any regulatory deployment + <12mo timeline (unrealistic cycle) | Push FDA/regulator/bar pre-submission; extend timeline |
| Unhedged Scale | National/Global + High/Very High complexity + No pilot | Demand pilot phase; reduce initial scope |
| Existential Bet | Existential spend + 2+yr + Very High complexity + Ecosystem | Ask participant: reframe as narrower scope or accept -3 risk |
When fired: Stop; ask participant to reframe (narrower scope, longer timeline, lower spend, reduce complexity, add hedges). If participant doesn't adjust -> score -2 to -3 on Execution Risk. If participant adjusts credibly -> may unlock +2 or +1 on Exec Risk.
4. 15-SECOND SCORING DECISION TREE#
For each explicit decision:
-
Specificity check (5 sec): WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/HOW/HOW MUCH/RISK + BANDS clear?
- If NO (>2 missing) -> Ask for clarification. Don't score yet.
-
Band plausibility (5 sec): Any red-flag combo above?
- If YES -> Challenge; offer narrower scope. Unlock +/-3 if band red-flag fires.
- If NO -> Proceed to scoring.
-
Score three dimensions (50 sec total):
- Strategic Fit: -2 / 0 / +2 (or +/-3 if red-flag)
- Execution Risk: -2 / 0 / +2 (or +/-3) -- Use band translation table
- Tail Risk: -2 / 0 / +2 (or +/-3 if red-flag)
- Total = Strat Fit + Exec Risk + Tail Risk
-
Post & explain (5 sec): "Score: +2/6. Reason: [band combo that drove score]."
5. WORKED EXAMPLES (Band Selection -> Score)#
Example 1: Retail Demand Forecasting Deployment#
Participant decision: "Deploy AI demand forecasting to 500 stores, 90 days, $2M budget, existing vendor."
Bands:
| Band | Selection |
|---|---|
| Spend | Absorbable |
| Time | 0-3mo |
| Complexity | Low |
| Dependency | Vendor |
| Scale | Regional (500 stores) |
Band combo: Absorbable + 0-3mo + Low + Vendor + Regional
Lookup: Similar to row 3 (Material, 0-3mo, Low, Internal, Regional) but Absorbable downgrade = slightly better.
Scoring:
- Strategic Fit +2: Directly addresses margin-defense opportunity vs. Amazon; proven tech.
- Execution Risk +1: Band combo suggests +1-+2; proven tech + existing vendor = +1 (conservative).
- Tail Risk 0: Phased scope limits downside; pilot approach reversible.
- Total: +3/6 (check)
Explain: "Strong score. Bands (Absorbable + 0-3mo + Low) are straightforward to execute. Execution Risk +1 reflects proven tech + vendor partnership."
Example 2: Healthcare FDA Diagnostic AI Submission#
Participant decision: "Initiate FDA pre-submission for radiology AI; plan 12-month clinical validation; $8M budget; will engage FDA early."
Bands:
| Band | Selection |
|---|---|
| Spend | Material |
| Time | 3-12mo |
| Complexity | Very High |
| Dependency | Regulator |
| Scale | Pilot (select hospital system) |
Band combo: Material + 3-12mo + Very High + Regulator + Pilot
Red-flag check? Regulator-dependent + 3-12mo timeline approaches constraint (FDA approval typically 18-24mo). But participant is proposing pre-submission + validation (not approval). Plausible with caveats.
Scoring:
- Strategic Fit +1: Strategic value (clinical AI is high-impact); longer timeline acceptable.
- Execution Risk -1: Regulatory dependency + Very High complexity = constraint. But FDA pre-submission + pilot scope mitigates. -1 (not -2) because participant has regulatory pathway.
- Tail Risk 0: Human review mandatory; pilot scope; FDA engagement reduces surprise risk.
- Total: 0/6 (check)
Explain: "Plausible move but execution risk is real. Band combo (Regulator + Very High + 3-12mo) hits regulatory constraint. You've mitigated with pre-submission + pilot, so Exec Risk -1 (not -2). Strategic Fit +1 (clinical value) + Tail Risk 0 (human oversight) = 0/6 total."
Example 3: Law Firm AI-Assisted Brief Drafting#
Participant decision: "Deploy AI-assisted brief drafting across litigation practice group; mandatory attorney review and sign-off on all output; bar rule compliance assessment per jurisdiction; $5M annual licensing budget."
Bands:
| Band | Selection |
|---|---|
| Spend | Material |
| Time | 3-12mo |
| Complexity | High |
| Dependency | Regulator (bar rules) |
| Scale | Regional (one practice group) |
Band combo: Material + 3-12mo + High + Regulator + Regional
Red-flag check? Regulator-dependent (bar rules) + 3-12mo. Bar rules are evolving but not approval-gated like FDA. Attorney review protocol is the key safeguard. Plausible if attorney review is mandatory.
Scoring:
- Strategic Fit +1: Addresses efficiency demands from clients; proven tools available; positions firm for future AI adoption.
- Execution Risk -1: Bar rule complexity across jurisdictions + High complexity. But mandatory attorney review + one practice group scope mitigates. -1 (not -2).
- Tail Risk +1: Mandatory attorney review eliminates malpractice exposure; bar compliance assessment proactive; limited scope allows learning.
- Total: +1/6 (check)
Explain: "Defensible move. Bar rule dependency adds complexity, but attorney review is the right safeguard. Execution Risk -1 reflects regulatory uncertainty, offset by Strategic Fit +1 (client demand) and Tail Risk +1 (malpractice managed). +1/6 total."
6. COMMON ERRORS TO AVOID#
| Error | What Happens | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Vague band mapping | "Transformational spend" without timeline/complexity specified. | Require all 5 bands clear before scoring. |
| Band override | Participant says "Exec Risk +2" even though bands suggest -1. | Bands drive score, not participant preference. Explain your band logic. |
| Missing red-flag | Global + 0-3mo slips through without challenge. | Reference red-flag table explicitly. Challenge band combos before scoring. |
| Tail risk underweighting | Autonomous systems scored at +1 with "no rollback" mentioned. | If Very High complexity + no pilot/rollback = -2 minimum on Tail Risk. |
| Allowable overcommitment | Material spend + Transformational complexity; participants argue "we'll find a way." | Timeline/complexity mismatch = material execution risk. Score -1 to -2 on Exec Risk; don't apologize. |
| Conflating industries | Scoring a Consulting decision using Law-specific criteria or vice versa. | Each industry scored on its own merits with its own context. Check the industry baseline (Scoring Baselines). |
7. FALLBACK QUICK REFERENCE (11 Industries, Base Case Scores)#
If an industry receives NO explicit decision from any participant, apply deterministic fallback from this table:
| Industry | Fallback Strat Fit | Fallback Exec Risk | Fallback Tail Risk | Fallback Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retail | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| CPG | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| Healthcare Provider | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 |
| Healthcare Payer | +1 | +1 | 0 | +2 |
| Finance | +1 | +1 | +1 | +3 |
| Consulting | +1 | +1 | 0 | +2 |
| Law | 0 | +1 | +1 | +2 |
| Manufacturing | 0 | +1 | +1 | +2 |
| Logistics | +1 | +1 | 0 | +2 |
| Big Tech | +1 | +1 | 0 | +2 |
| B2B/B2C SaaS | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
Example: Participant submits explicit Retail decision (+2/6). CPG receives no explicit action. Apply fallback: CPG = +1/6 (deterministic). Retail +2/6 posted as explicit; CPG +1/6 posted as fallback.
8. INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC WATCH-OUTS (Baseline Anchors)#
| Industry | Watch For | High-Risk Band Combo |
|---|---|---|
| Retail | Brand backlash on aggressive personalization; Amazon competition | Global + Very High complexity + <6mo |
| CPG | Retailer retaliation on aggressive DTC; AI-generated content brand safety | DTC + Transformational spend + <12mo + Ecosystem |
| Healthcare Provider | Patient safety liability; physician adoption risk; FDA timeline | Diagnostic AI + Very High complexity + <12mo + no FDA pre-submission |
| Healthcare Payer | Member backlash on aggressive claim denials; regulatory MLR limits | >70% auto-denial + <6mo + no human review + Existential |
| Finance | Systemic risk if trading AI fails; fair lending litigation | Autonomous trading + Existential spend + 2+ years + no oversight |
| Consulting | Junior talent pipeline disruption; pricing pressure from AI boutiques; client in-house AI competition | 40%+ junior cuts + <12mo + no vertical upskilling |
| Law | Bar rule uncertainty; malpractice liability from AI-generated work; billable hour model disruption; associate leverage erosion | AI briefs filed without attorney review; >30% associate cuts + <12mo; firm-wide pricing change + <6mo |
| Manufacturing | Union relations; labor displacement without transition plan | >30% headcount cut + <6mo + no severance plan |
| Logistics | Driver resistance; last-mile profitability limits; AV regulatory uncertainty | Full AV fleet + <2yr + Global + no union negotiation |
| Big Tech | Antitrust scrutiny; margin pressure from CapEx inflation; open-source competition. Excludes AI lab/model dev. | Existential capex + 2+ years + Global + no competitive hedge |
| B2B/B2C SaaS | Pricing backlash on AI bundling; startup disruption; margin compression | 50%+ cost increase (AI) + <6mo + pricing unchanged + Transformational |
9. QUICK REFERENCE: SCORING BANDS SUMMARY#
Execution Risk: Use band translation table (Section 2).
Strategic Fit: Quick calibration
- +2: Captures core competitive opportunity or mitigates core threat.
- 0: Neutral; reasonable move, not game-changing.
- -2: Misaligned with scenario; opportunity cost.
Tail Risk: Quick calibration
- +2: Includes hedges (pilot, human review, rollback plan).
- 0: Neutral; standard risk management.
- -2: Exposed to downside; no hedges.
TOTAL SCORING RANGE: -6 to +6 (typical: -2 to +6)
| Score | Interpretation | Action |
|---|---|---|
| +5 to +6 | Strong (70%+ success) | Accept. Celebrate. |
| +1 to +4 | Acceptable (50-70% success) | Accept. Monitor. |
| -2 to 0 | Weak | Challenge. Ask to narrow scope. |
| <-2 | Poor. Red-flag fired. | Reject or reframe significantly. |
PRINT. LAMINATE. REFERENCE DURING EVERY DECISION. FACILITATE BRISKLY.