id: review-kit/alignment/scorecard
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Scorecard
status: candidate
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
rating_scale:
  - id: "0"
    label: absent
    meaning: No useful evidence or mapping exists.
  - id: "1"
    label: weak
    meaning: Early or ambiguous evidence exists but cannot guide implementation safely.
  - id: "2"
    label: partial
    meaning: Useful alignment exists, with gaps or caveats that need work.
  - id: "3"
    label: strong
    meaning: The repository maps cleanly enough for practical use.
  - id: "4"
    label: canonical
    meaning: The repository can act as an exemplar, reusable pattern, or benchmark input.
dimensions:
  - id: fit
    title: Canon Fit
    question: How well does the repository map to selected canon models, standards, profiles, and benchmarks?
    evidence_required:
      - direct mappings
      - partial mappings
      - unmapped native concepts
  - id: gaps
    title: Alignment Gaps
    question: Which missing artifacts, schemas, tests, relationships, decisions, or concepts block reliable canon use?
    evidence_required:
      - missing surfaces
      - missing validation
      - missing governance or evidence
  - id: conflicts
    title: Semantic Conflicts
    question: Which repository terms or structures conflict with canon meaning or risk flattening distinct concepts?
    evidence_required:
      - conflicting names
      - overloaded scopes
      - native terms with non-canonical meanings
  - id: evidence-quality
    title: Evidence Quality
    question: How strong, current, and source-linked is the evidence behind each mapping or claim?
    evidence_required:
      - source files
      - tests
      - generated outputs
      - review decisions
  - id: implementation-priority
    title: Implementation Priority
    question: Which alignment work should be done first to increase practical utility?
    evidence_required:
      - consumer need
      - blast radius
      - implementation cost
      - risk reduction
  - id: canon-pressure
    title: Canon Pressure
    question: Which findings suggest the canon itself should learn, extend, or clarify something?
    evidence_required:
      - repeated gaps
      - useful new concepts
      - profile or schema pressure
      - unresolved standard boundaries
  - id: workplan-readiness
    title: Consumer Workplan Readiness
    question: Are the proposed repo-local tasks clear, scoped, testable, and anchored in evidence?
    evidence_required:
      - task list
      - acceptance criteria
      - validation path
      - ownership boundary
decision_bands:
  - id: ready-to-adopt
    rule: Most dimensions are strong or canonical, and workplan readiness is strong.
    action: Create consumer-repo adoption workplan and track residual gaps.
  - id: ready-to-improve
    rule: Fit is partial or strong, but gaps, conflicts, or evidence quality need work.
    action: Create consumer-repo improvement workplan.
  - id: needs-discovery
    rule: Fit, evidence quality, or surface selection is weak.
    action: Create discovery or assessment workplan before implementation.
  - id: canon-feedback-needed
    rule: Canon pressure is high or repeated across reviews.
    action: Create or propose a canon workplan instead of changing standards inline.