evaluation-criteria

Evaluation Criteria

Frameworks for scoring and comparing ideas. Used alongside Six Hats for multi-dimensional evaluation.

Primary Scoring: Impact × Feasibility

The core evaluation matrix. Every idea gets scored on both axes.

Impact (1-5)

| Score | Level | Description | |-------|-------|-------------| | 5 | **Transformative** | Changes the game entirely. Creates a new category or eliminates a major pain point. | | 4 | **Significant** | Clear, major improvement. Users would notice and value it immediately. | | 3 | **Moderate** | Useful but not remarkable. Incremental improvement with clear value. | | 2 | **Minor** | Small improvement. Nice to have but not a differentiator. | | 1 | **Negligible** | Barely noticeable effect. Low user value. |

Feasibility (1-5)

| Score | Level | Description | |-------|-------|-------------| | 5 | **Easy** | Could start today. Existing resources, known approach, low risk. | | 4 | **Doable** | Requires effort but clearly achievable. Path is visible. | | 3 | **Challenging** | Significant effort. Some unknowns but realistic with investment. | | 2 | **Hard** | Major investment, new capabilities needed, or significant unknowns. | | 1 | **Near-impossible** | Fundamental barriers. Requires breakthroughs or massive resources. |

Quadrant Interpretation

          HIGH IMPACT
              │
    Quick     │    Big
    Wins      │    Bets
    (4,4+)    │    (4+,2-)
              │
──────────────┼──────────────
              │
    Fill-ins  │    Money
    (2-,4+)   │    Pits
              │    (2-,2-)
              │
          LOW IMPACT
     HIGH FEASIBILITY ← → LOW FEASIBILITY

• **Quick Wins** (high impact, high feasibility): Do these first
• **Big Bets** (high impact, low feasibility): Worth exploring if the payoff justifies the effort
• **Fill-ins** (low impact, high feasibility): Do if time permits
• **Money Pits** (low impact, low feasibility): Avoid unless there's a hidden insight

Secondary Criteria

Novelty (1-5)

How original is this idea?

• 5: Never seen before — genuinely new
• 4: New in this context — adapted from elsewhere
• 3: Fresh take on existing concept
• 2: Incremental variation
• 1: Already exists / obvious

Risk Profile

• **Technical risk**: Can this be built?
• **Market risk**: Will anyone want this?
• **Adoption risk**: Will people change behavior for this?
• **Competitive risk**: Can this be copied easily?

Aggregation

The Flame Report presents:

1. **Impact × Feasibility matrix** — visual positioning 2. **Six Hats summary** — qualitative analysis per idea 3. **User Red Hat** — gut feelings 4. **Composite ranking** — weighted by Impact (40%) + Feasibility (30%) + User Gut (20%) + Novelty (10%)

The composite is a starting point, not a verdict. Users can override any ranking based on their intuition and context.