Absent or unsafe
Required evidence is missing, unusable, materially misleading, or creates unacceptable risk.
PUBLIC ASSESSMENT STANDARD
FDE Portfolio Scoring Rubric
Every score must be supported by observable evidence in the submission or live defense. Polish cannot substitute for operational credibility.
01 / SCORING SCALE
Four evidence levels.
Reviewers score against anchored descriptions rather than an overall impression.
Developing
Some relevant work exists, but major gaps, unsupported assumptions, or operational weaknesses remain.
Competent
The evidence is coherent, usable, proportionate, and sufficient for the assessed mission.
Strong
The work anticipates field complexity, makes tradeoffs explicit, and would support reliable execution.
02 / 100-POINT RUBRIC
What is actually scored.
Detailed scoring anchors and reviewer evidence notes are retained for every assessment.
15 POINTS
Discovery and problem framing
- Target operational decision is specific and consequential.
- Current condition, baseline, stakeholders, and workflow are supported by evidence.
- Facts, claims, assumptions, and open questions are clearly separated.
- Scope is bounded and avoids premature solution lock-in.
10 POINTS
Requirements and success metrics
- Requirements trace to discovery findings and user roles.
- Acceptance criteria are testable.
- Nonfunctional constraints are explicit.
- Metrics cover technical health, adoption, operational outcome, and value.
15 POINTS
Architecture and technical judgment
- Architecture is proportionate to the workflow and constraints.
- Data movement, trust boundaries, interfaces, and ownership are visible.
- Tradeoffs and rejected alternatives are explained.
- Human review and exception handling are designed where required.
20 POINTS
Implementation quality
- Core workflow functions end to end.
- Code and data structures are understandable and maintainable.
- Missing, delayed, duplicated, and invalid inputs are handled.
- Tests, setup instructions, logs, and operational diagnostics are present.
10 POINTS
Reliability, security, and governance
- Permissions and sensitive data are handled appropriately.
- Failure modes, monitoring, escalation, and rollback are credible.
- Auditability and change control match the risk.
- No secrets or prohibited data are exposed.
10 POINTS
Deployment and adoption
- Pilot scope, users, entry criteria, and exit criteria are defined.
- Training, feedback, resistance, and local workarounds are addressed.
- Support and long-term ownership are assigned.
- Usage and workflow transition can be measured.
10 POINTS
Value measurement
- Baseline, target, data source, cadence, and owner are defined.
- Technical activity is not confused with business impact.
- Attribution limits and unintended consequences are acknowledged.
- Recommendation criteria for scale, revision, or shutdown are explicit.
10 POINTS
Communication and defense
- Demonstration is concise and truthful.
- Technical and executive artifacts are appropriate for their audiences.
- Candidate can explain tradeoffs, weaknesses, and new constraints.
- Candidate demonstrates ownership of the submitted work.
03 / CRITICAL FAILURES
Some failures override the numeric score.
A candidate cannot pass when the submission contains material integrity violations or unsafe conduct inconsistent with the credential.
Identity or authorship misrepresentation
Plagiarism or undisclosed material third-party work
Fabricated results, users, metrics, or deployment evidence
Exposed credentials, secrets, or prohibited confidential data
Unsafe automation of a decision requiring human authority
Materially misleading claims about causality or system capability
Inability to explain the submitted implementation
Core workflow does not function during validation or defense
04 / DECISION RULES
Clear outcomes and bounded revision.
The decision reflects demonstrated competence at the time of assessment, not a prediction of career potential.
Credential issued
All passing requirements are met and the evidence supports the claimed competencies.
Minor corrections
Competence is demonstrated, but a limited documentation or packaging correction is required before issuance.
Material gap, bounded resubmission
One or more competencies are below standard but can reasonably be reassessed through a defined revision.
New assessment required
The work does not meet the standard, the live defense is unsuccessful, or a critical failure is present.