OSE Goals Filter

About

Evaluate all OSE engagement through it. Anyone can produce an assessment via an AI automated evaluation process.

Parse OSE Specifications, GVCS, OSE Model of Change, design of Iconic OSE Campus, Solar Breeder, Regenerative PV Project, Metacrisis Solutions Filter, and The OSE Story and derive a filter with conditions for evaluating potential OSE engagement.

To facilitate rollout sequencing, we must also use the OSE Priorities Filter.

And - the OSE Collaboration Readiness Filter - which distinguishes between development and deployment.

OSE Engagement Evaluation Filter

This filter is used to evaluate any proposed OSE engagement, including:

• Enterprise proposals
• Collaborations and partnerships
• Grants and funding opportunities
• Product-development projects
• Research and development initiatives
• Educational programs
• Campus projects
• Technology deployments
• Strategic relationships
• Public communications or campaigns

For each question, the evaluator should provide:

1. A written response
2. Supporting evidence
3. A score, where applicable
4. Any conditions that must be met before approval

Scoring Scale

Score	Meaning
0	No evidence, directly conflicts with the criterion, or the question has not been addressed.
1	Weak alignment; the response is primarily aspirational and lacks a credible implementation mechanism.
2	Partial alignment; some relevant provisions exist, but major deficiencies or uncertainties remain.
3	Acceptable alignment; a credible plan, responsible party, and measurable outcome are identified.
4	Strong alignment; the proposal includes evidence, implementation details, measurable targets, and risk controls.
5	Exemplary alignment; the proposal advances OSE practice, produces reusable public assets, and is designed for replication and systemic impact.

Evaluation Questions

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a580466-41e8-83ea-80f6-e85f985e7ebd

#	Evaluation Area	Question to Ask	Condition of Satisfaction	Required Evidence	Type
1	Mission alignment	How does this engagement contribute to the creation of an open source economy?	The response identifies a direct and credible relationship between the engagement and the development of open, collaborative, locally productive, and distributive economic capacity. The claimed contribution is specific, material, and measurable rather than merely rhetorical.	Written theory of change; defined outputs; intended beneficiaries; measurable mission outcome.	Mandatory gate
2	Regenerative civilization	Does the engagement help create a regenerative alternative to an extractive, destructive, or scarcity-producing system?	The proposal identifies the existing system-level problem, explains the regenerative alternative being created, and demonstrates that it addresses root causes rather than only treating symptoms.	Problem statement; systems analysis; comparison with the incumbent model; intended regenerative outcomes.	Mandatory gate
3	Artificial scarcity	Does the engagement reduce artificial scarcity, or could it create new restrictions, dependencies, or exclusion?	The engagement expands access to knowledge, tools, productive capacity, resources, or opportunity. It does not depend on planned obsolescence, information restriction, monopoly control, unnecessary credential barriers, or artificial limitation of supply.	Access model; pricing model; licensing terms; dependency analysis; barriers-to-entry analysis.	Mandatory gate
4	Open-source commitment	Will all core knowledge generated through the engagement be published under an OSE-compatible open license?	Core designs, source files, processes, research, instructional materials, enterprise methods, and other replication-critical information are legally and practically available for use, study, modification, and redistribution.	Proposed licenses; publication plan; list of public deliverables; identification of any exceptions.	Mandatory gate
5	Intellectual-property restrictions	Do any patents, trade secrets, nondisclosure agreements, proprietary platforms, contractual restrictions, or third-party rights limit OSE's ability to publish or use the work?	No restriction prevents OSE or the public from using, modifying, publishing, teaching, reproducing, or building upon the core work. Any unavoidable proprietary dependency is peripheral, temporary, explicitly documented, and governed by a credible replacement plan.	Draft contracts; IP ownership schedule; NDA terms; third-party license review; dependency-removal plan.	Mandatory gate
6	Distributive economics	Can the resulting enterprise or production model be adopted by many independent producers rather than controlled by one centralized organization?	The enterprise model, operating knowledge, production methods, costing, and startup process are published and structured for independent replication. Success does not depend on exclusive territory, captive suppliers, proprietary control, or centralized permission.	Open business model; unit economics; startup guide; operating procedures; replication rights.	Mandatory for enterprise proposals
7	Hazard reduction	Does the engagement eliminate or minimize toxic substances, dangerous processes, regulated emissions, and hazardous waste by design?	Inherently safer materials and processes are prioritized over protective equipment or downstream pollution controls. Remaining hazards are justified, controlled, documented, and paired with a safer-process research path.	Hazard analysis; material safety data; process alternatives; control hierarchy; emergency procedures.	Mandatory where material hazards exist
8	Human safety	Are risks to builders, operators, users, neighbors, and future replicators acceptably controlled?	Hazards have been systematically identified; controls follow an appropriate hierarchy; responsible parties are named; training is defined; and residual risks are explicitly accepted through a documented process.	Risk assessment; safety design; training plan; inspection criteria; incident-response procedure.	Mandatory gate
9	Nonviolence and misuse	Could the work materially enable coercion, violence, surveillance, exploitation, dispossession, ecological destruction, or other harmful uses?	Foreseeable misuse is examined honestly. Design, governance, access, deployment, and partnership controls reduce the probability and severity of harmful application without falsely claiming that misuse is impossible.	Misuse analysis; threat model; safeguards; deployment policy; partner screening.	Mandatory gate
10	Partner alignment	Do the proposed partner's conduct, incentives, ownership structure, and strategic interests align sufficiently with OSE values?	Due diligence identifies no material conflict that would compromise openness, safety, distributive economics, public credibility, or mission independence. Any manageable conflict has explicit safeguards.	Due-diligence report; ownership review; litigation or controversy review; incentive analysis; references.	Mandatory for external collaborations
11	Exclusivity and control	Does the partner request exclusivity, ownership, approval rights, territorial restrictions, preferential access, or control over OSE outputs?	No term gives a party the ability to suppress publication, prevent replication, restrict OSE's future work, or gain exclusive control over publicly or collaboratively developed assets.	Term sheet; contract language; exclusivity provisions; control-rights review.	Mandatory for external collaborations
12	Financial alignment	Could the funding or revenue arrangement influence OSE to conceal results, distort priorities, overstate outcomes, or compromise its principles?	Funding conditions are transparent and compatible with independent publication, honest evaluation, mission control, and public-interest decision-making.	Funding agreement; reporting requirements; restrictions; conflict-of-interest disclosures.	Mandatory for funded engagements
13	OSE independence	Can OSE exit the engagement without losing control of its prior work, identity, community, critical infrastructure, or ability to continue its mission?	Exit terms preserve OSE's pre-existing and collaboratively generated open assets, protect continuity of operations, and avoid unreasonable financial, legal, technical, or reputational lock-in.	Exit clauses; asset ownership; data-export provisions; transition plan; termination costs.	Mandatory for external collaborations
14	Scope and deliverables	What exactly will be produced, by whom, and by when?	Deliverables are specific, verifiable, assigned to responsible parties, linked to dates, and include both the functional output and the open documentation required for replication.	Scope statement; work breakdown; deliverable register; owners; acceptance criteria.	Mandatory operational gate
15	Success metrics	What measurable outcomes will determine whether the engagement succeeded?	Metrics cover outputs, real-world outcomes, open documentation, replication, economics, environmental performance, learning, safety, and mission contribution where relevant.	Baseline; targets; measurement method; reporting schedule; responsible evaluator.	Mandatory operational gate
16	Risk management	What technical, financial, legal, safety, ecological, partnership, schedule, and reputational risks could prevent success or cause harm?	Material risks are recorded with likelihood, consequence, mitigation, owner, trigger, and contingency. Unknowns are stated explicitly rather than being presented as resolved.	Risk register; mitigation plan; contingency budget; named risk owners.	Mandatory operational gate
17	Transparency	Will the development process be transparent, including decisions, failures, costs, methods, and lessons learned?	The proposal includes regular public documentation beginning early in development. Material decisions, experiments, budgets, failures, revisions, and unresolved issues are documented rather than only presenting a polished final result.	Documentation schedule; public repository; meeting records; budget format; development log.	Scored
18	Documentation completeness	Could a competent independent person reproduce the result using only the published documentation?	Documentation includes the files and knowledge required for replication, such as design files, source files, drawings, specifications, bills of materials, sourcing information, budgets, build instructions, operating instructions, maintenance procedures, safety information, and troubleshooting guidance.	Documentation index; sample release package; replication protocol; completion criteria.	Scored
19	Independent replication	What must another person, enterprise, or community possess in order to replicate the work independently?	Replication requirements are explicit and realistically accessible. The proposal minimizes dependence on OSE personnel, unavailable expertise, specialized infrastructure, proprietary vendors, or undocumented tacit knowledge.	Skills list; tooling list; facility requirements; capital requirements; training materials; replication test plan.	Scored
20	Collaborative development	Is the work structured so that outside contributors can make meaningful contributions?	Tasks, interfaces, standards, repositories, communication channels, and contribution procedures are sufficiently clear for external participants to contribute without requiring informal insider access.	Contribution guide; task breakdown; technical standards; repository access; review process.	Scored
21	Collaboration culture	Does the engagement reward cooperation, knowledge sharing, and team capability rather than individual status or control?	Governance and incentives favor constructive collaboration, attribution, mentorship, teachability, conflict resolution, and collective success. No individual or organization can unreasonably capture or obstruct the shared work.	Governance model; contributor agreement; decision process; attribution policy; conflict-resolution procedure.	Scored
22	Inclusivity and participation	Who can participate, and what unnecessary barriers could exclude otherwise capable contributors?	Participation pathways are available to people with varied backgrounds and skill levels. Necessary safety or competence requirements are distinguished from unnecessary financial, cultural, geographic, institutional, or credential barriers.	Participation criteria; accessibility provisions; onboarding process; training pathway; cost of participation.	Scored
23	Human capability	Does the engagement increase participants' ability to learn, collaborate, design, build, teach, and act responsibly?	Participants gain transferable skills, practical agency, systems understanding, and the ability to teach or reproduce the work. The engagement develops people rather than treating them only as labor, customers, or passive recipients.	Learning objectives; competency framework; assessment method; participant progression plan; teaching requirement.	Scored
24	Ethical agency	Does the engagement increase human agency while maintaining responsibility to people, communities, and ecosystems?	The proposal enables participants to act more effectively without concentrating unaccountable power or externalizing harm. Governance, safety, ecological responsibility, and public benefit are built into the implementation.	Governance controls; ethical-risk analysis; accountability process; affected-community input.	Scored
25	Distribution of wealth and agency	Who gains ownership, productive capacity, income, knowledge, and decision-making power if the engagement succeeds?	Benefits are distributed among participants, producers, users, communities, and future replicators. The engagement does not primarily transfer public or community value into concentrated private ownership.	Stakeholder-benefit analysis; ownership structure; revenue distribution; governance rights; workforce model.	Scored
26	Barriers to entry	Does the engagement lower the cost, knowledge, tooling, capital, regulatory, or organizational barriers required to participate in productive enterprise?	At least one significant barrier to productive participation is measurably reduced, and the reduction is made available through open documentation, training, modular tooling, financing methods, shared infrastructure, or simplified procedures.	Before-and-after barrier analysis; cost comparison; training burden; startup requirements.	Scored
27	Economic significance	Does the engagement address a material human need or economically significant sector?	The output addresses a real need with sufficient scale, demand, productive value, or cost impact to justify OSE involvement. The result is not merely demonstrative unless the demonstration unlocks a clearly identified strategic capability.	Demand evidence; market or needs analysis; sector significance; adoption pathway.	Scored
28	Economic feasibility	Is there a credible path to funding development, operating sustainably, and supporting continued maintenance and improvement?	Costs, revenues, resources, labor, capital needs, risks, and assumptions are documented. The engagement has a plausible sustainability model that does not require indefinite subsidy or compromise OSE's mission.	Budget; cash-flow model; assumptions; funding sources; sensitivity analysis; maintenance costs.	Scored
29	Cost performance	Does the proposal provide equal or greater functional value at substantially lower lifecycle cost than conventional alternatives?	The proposal includes a like-for-like comparison covering acquisition, fabrication, labor, energy, maintenance, repair, consumables, downtime, financing, and end-of-life costs. Any cost advantage is credible and does not depend on unpaid or hidden labor.	Lifecycle cost model; benchmark products; labor assumptions; operating-cost comparison.	Scored
30	Internalization of costs	Does the economic model account for ecological, health, social, maintenance, waste, and end-of-life costs?	Material costs are not shifted unfairly to workers, communities, ecosystems, future users, or future generations. Externalities are identified and either eliminated, reduced, or included in decision-making and cost calculations.	Lifecycle assessment; waste plan; health-and-safety costs; remediation obligations; end-of-life plan.	Scored
31	Modularity	Is the proposed product, process, organization, or curriculum divided into modules with clear and reusable interfaces?	Major components can be independently developed, tested, repaired, replaced, upgraded, rearranged, or reused without redesigning the entire system.	Architecture diagram; interface specifications; module list; replacement procedure.	Scored where applicable
32	Construction-set compatibility	Can a limited set of common components, tools, processes, or organizational patterns support multiple useful applications?	The engagement increases interoperability and reuse across OSE systems. It avoids unnecessary one-off components and contributes reusable modules, tooling, standards, or methods to a larger product ecology.	Common-component analysis; compatibility map; reuse examples; interface standard.	Scored where applicable
33	Product ecology and systems integration	How does the engagement interact with other OSE products, enterprises, infrastructures, educational programs, or campus systems?	Inputs, outputs, energy, materials, information, skills, waste streams, and enterprise relationships are mapped. The engagement creates useful synergies and avoids optimizing one component at the expense of the whole system.	Systems map; input-output analysis; integration interfaces; identified synergies and tradeoffs.	Scored
34	Simplicity	Is the proposed solution as simple as possible without sacrificing required performance, safety, or replicability?	Unnecessary parts, features, processes, dependencies, and organizational complexity have been removed. Remaining complexity is justified by a defined functional or safety requirement.	Design review; feature justification; part-count comparison; process map; complexity analysis.	Scored where applicable
35	User control and repairability	Can users understand, inspect, operate, maintain, diagnose, repair, and modify the result?	Users have physical, legal, informational, and practical access to the parts and knowledge needed for maintenance and modification. Routine service does not require proprietary authorization, inaccessible diagnostics, or forced replacement.	Service manual; diagnostic tools; repair-time targets; parts availability; user-access provisions.	Scored where applicable
36	Design for disassembly	Can the product or infrastructure be safely disassembled into reusable, repairable, replaceable, or recyclable components?	Disassembly is intentional, documented, and achievable with accessible tools. Permanent joining methods and destructive disassembly are minimized unless required for safety or performance.	Disassembly procedure; fastener and joining analysis; tool requirements; recovery plan.	Scored where applicable
37	Lifetime design	Is the result designed for long service life rather than planned or accepted obsolescence?	Wear components are replaceable; structural components are durable; software and documentation remain accessible; upgrades are possible; and maintenance can extend useful life substantially.	Design-life target; wear analysis; maintenance schedule; upgrade strategy; obsolescence-risk analysis.	Scored where applicable
38	Performance	Does the proposed result meet or exceed the functional performance required to be a credible alternative to industry-standard solutions?	Required performance metrics are defined before development and verified through transparent testing under representative conditions. Performance is sufficient for real productive use, not only prototype demonstration.	Performance specification; benchmark; test protocol; test data; acceptance criteria.	Scored where applicable
39	Industrial productivity	Can the solution achieve economically meaningful throughput, quality, reliability, and labor productivity?	The proposal demonstrates or credibly projects production rates, uptime, quality, energy use, labor requirements, and maintenance needs comparable to the intended application.	Throughput model; reliability targets; quality-control plan; time study; production test.	Scored where applicable
40	Flexible fabrication	Can the required components be produced using general-purpose, accessible, and adaptable fabrication equipment?	The design minimizes dependence on highly specialized tooling and supports production through flexible fabrication facilities that can make multiple products.	Tooling list; fabrication process; make-or-buy analysis; alternative production routes.	Scored where applicable
41	Local production	What portion of the product, process, or service can be produced, maintained, and improved locally?	The proposal identifies realistic localization levels and increases local capacity without sacrificing safety or essential quality. Components that cannot yet be localized are documented with substitution or development pathways.	Localization map; supply-chain analysis; local skill requirements; substitution roadmap.	Scored
42	Material abundance	Does the engagement favor abundant, ubiquitous, recyclable, and non-strategic materials?	Material selection avoids scarce, conflict-sensitive, toxic, geopolitically constrained, or non-recyclable inputs wherever feasible. Any critical material has a justified use, recovery plan, and substitution pathway.	Bill of materials; critical-material assessment; sourcing data; substitution plan; recycling strategy.	Scored where applicable
43	Supply-chain resilience	Could the engagement continue if a single vendor, region, proprietary component, or transportation route became unavailable?	Critical dependencies are identified, alternatives are qualified, specifications are open, and essential components can be sourced or produced through multiple pathways.	Dependency map; alternate suppliers; local production options; contingency plan.	Scored
44	Scalability and fractality	Can the engagement operate effectively at multiple scales while preserving local autonomy and functional completeness?	The model can be replicated as self-contained units and connected into larger networks without requiring excessive centralization, bureaucracy, or loss of resilience.	Scale model; minimum viable unit; replication unit; network architecture; coordination requirements.	Scored
45	Replicability	Has the engagement been designed as a repeatable model rather than a unique one-time project?	A defined replication package, implementation sequence, resource estimate, training process, quality standard, and feedback mechanism exist or are included as deliverables.	Replication manual; pilot plan; quality checklist; required-resource model; replication feedback process.	Scored
46	Ecological regeneration	Does the engagement improve ecological conditions rather than merely reducing the rate of damage?	The proposal defines measurable positive outcomes for soil, water, biodiversity, carbon, ecosystem function, habitat, material cycles, or other relevant ecological systems.	Baseline; ecological targets; measurement plan; restoration method; monitoring period.	Scored
47	Renewable energy	Can the engagement operate using renewable energy throughout its lifecycle?	Energy demand is quantified, renewable supply is identified, efficiency measures are included, and fossil-fuel dependence is eliminated or governed by a documented transition plan.	Energy model; source mix; embodied-energy analysis; transition milestones.	Scored where applicable
48	Closed-loop material flows	Can waste outputs be eliminated, reused as inputs, recycled, or safely returned to natural systems?	Major material, water, chemical, and waste streams are mapped. Closed-loop recovery is designed into the process, and residual waste is minimized and safely managed.	Material-flow analysis; recycling process; waste quantities; recovery targets; residual-disposal plan.	Scored where applicable
49	Appropriate automation	Does automation reduce dangerous, repetitive, difficult, or unrewarding work without reducing human agency or creating harmful dependencies?	Automation produces a defined improvement in safety, quality of life, reliability, learning, or productivity. Users retain meaningful control, comprehension, maintenance access, and an appropriate manual fallback.	Automation rationale; labor-impact assessment; control architecture; failure mode; manual fallback.	Scored where applicable
50	Social impact	How will the engagement affect workers, participants, families, local communities, and other affected groups?	Material positive and negative impacts are identified. The proposal includes mechanisms for community input, equitable participation, grievance resolution, and mitigation of foreseeable harm.	Stakeholder map; consultation record; impact assessment; grievance procedure; mitigation plan.	Scored
51	Governance	Who has authority to make decisions, allocate resources, change scope, resolve disputes, and approve publication?	Roles, decision rights, escalation paths, financial authority, publication authority, and accountability mechanisms are documented and consistent with open collaboration and OSE's mission.	Governance charter; responsibility matrix; decision process; escalation procedure.	Scored
52	Strategic leverage	Is OSE uniquely or especially well positioned to undertake this engagement?	The proposal uses OSE's distinctive capabilities, such as open-source product development, distributive enterprise, integrated product ecologies, immersion education, flexible fabrication, regenerative campuses, or collaborative development.	Strategic-fit statement; alternatives considered; unique-capability analysis.	Scored
53	Opportunity cost	What important OSE work, resources, relationships, or deadlines may be displaced by accepting this engagement?	Personnel, capital, facility use, management attention, schedule effects, and foregone alternatives are identified. The expected mission value exceeds the opportunity cost.	Resource-loading plan; alternatives analysis; affected-project list; priority comparison.	Scored
54	Realistic immediacy	Can meaningful progress begin using currently available knowledge, technology, resources, and people?	The engagement has a credible near-term starting point and does not depend entirely on speculative breakthroughs, unavailable infrastructure, undefined future funding, or indefinite preliminary research.	First-phase plan; available resources; dependency list; initial demonstration milestone.	Scored
55	Testing and validation	How will claims about performance, economics, safety, regeneration, learning, or replicability be tested?	Test methods are defined before final evaluation, use representative conditions, publish negative as well as positive results, and include independent replication or review where practical.	Validation plan; protocols; acceptance thresholds; data-publication plan; independent reviewer.	Scored
56	Long-term maintenance	Who will maintain, update, host, repair, govern, and steward the work after the initial engagement ends?	Long-term responsibilities, recurring costs, documentation custody, software or data hosting, physical maintenance, and governance are assigned and sustainably resourced.	Maintenance plan; recurring budget; repository stewardship; responsible organization; succession plan.	Scored
57	Long-term systems impact	What could this engagement contribute over a 10-year, 20-year, or 100-year horizon?	The engagement creates durable infrastructure, knowledge, institutions, productive capacity, ecological improvement, or replicable models rather than only short-lived activity or publicity.	Long-term impact pathway; durability analysis; institutionalization or replication strategy.	Scored
58	Transformative potential	Does the engagement create a better alternative capable of making a harmful or obsolete system less necessary?	The proposal demonstrates a credible path from prototype or pilot to a qualitatively better, accessible, and replicable system. Transformation is based on building superior alternatives rather than destruction, coercion, or opposition alone.	Incumbent comparison; transition strategy; adoption mechanism; scale pathway.	Scored
59	Metacrisis impact	Which interconnected ecological, social, economic, technological, or governance risks does the engagement address, and could it worsen any others?	The response considers cross-system effects and avoids solving one problem by transferring harm to another domain. Material interactions, rebound effects, and unintended consequences are documented.	Cross-impact matrix; systems map; rebound analysis; safeguards; monitoring plan.	Scored
60	Overall justification	Considering all benefits, risks, costs, alternatives, and opportunity costs, why should OSE engage?	The final justification is evidence-based, acknowledges uncertainties and tradeoffs, identifies required conditions, and demonstrates that engagement is a better mission-aligned choice than rejection, deferral, or an alternative approach.	Evaluation summary; weighted score; dissenting views; proposed conditions; final recommendation.	Final decision

Automatic Rejection Conditions

An engagement should normally be rejected if any of the following conditions applies and cannot be corrected before approval:

1. The proposal lacks defined deliverables, responsible parties, success metrics, or a risk-management process.
2. It does not materially advance the creation of an open source economy.
3. Core outputs cannot be released under an OSE-compatible open license.
4. A partner can suppress publication, prevent replication, or claim exclusive control over core work.
5. The engagement depends materially on trade secrecy or artificial scarcity.
6. It concentrates ownership, agency, or productive power without a credible distributive mechanism.
7. It creates an unreasonable risk of violence, exploitation, ecological destruction, or harm.
8. Material safety risks have not been evaluated and controlled.
9. OSE cannot leave the engagement without unacceptable legal, financial, technical, or mission lock-in.
10. The engagement would materially damage OSE's independence, credibility, or ability to continue its mission.

Conditional Approval

An engagement may be approved conditionally when it passes all mandatory gates but requires specific corrective actions.

Conditions should be written in the following form:

Required Condition	Responsible Party	Evidence Required	Deadline	Consequence if Not Met
Example: Publish all design source files and the complete bill of materials under an approved open license.	Project lead	Public repository reviewed by OSE	Before prototype funding is released	Engagement is suspended or rejected

Recommended Decision Method

1. Evaluate every mandatory gate.
2. Reject or return for revision any proposal that fails a mandatory gate.
3. Score all applicable scored questions from 0 to 5.
4. Mark non-applicable criteria as "N/A" and explain why they do not apply.
5. Record uncertainties, missing evidence, dissenting assessments, and required conditions.
6. Calculate the average score only from applicable scored questions.
7. Do not use a high average score to override a failed mandatory gate.
8. Publish the evaluation where confidentiality or legitimate personal-data restrictions do not prevent publication.

Decision Thresholds

Decision	Minimum Condition
Reject	One or more mandatory gates fail and cannot be corrected without changing the fundamental nature of the engagement.
Return for revision	The proposal may be compatible with OSE, but evidence is incomplete, risks are unresolved, or operational requirements are undefined.
Conditional approval	All mandatory gates pass, the average applicable score is at least 3.0, and specific deficiencies can be corrected through enforceable conditions.
Approve	All mandatory gates pass, the average applicable score is at least 4.0, no applicable scored category is below 2, and collaboration risk is acceptable.
Priority engagement	All approval conditions are met, the average applicable score is at least 4.5, and the engagement creates exceptional open, distributive, regenerative, and replicable strategic value.

Evaluation Summary Template

Field	Evaluation
Engagement name
Engagement type
Evaluator or evaluation team
Date evaluated
Mandatory gates passed?	Yes / No
Average score
Highest-value outcomes
Principal risks
Missing evidence
Conditions required
Opportunity cost
Recommended decision	Reject / Return for revision / Conditional approval / Approve / Priority engagement
Decision rationale
Responsible decision-maker
Review or expiration date