How many users experience this problem or benefit from this feature

1. 1
   Almost no oneAffects <5% of users
2. 2
   A fewAffects 5-20% of users
3. 3
   SomeAffects 20-50% of users
4. 4
   MostAffects 50-80% of users
5. 5
   Nearly everyoneAffects >80% of users

How often the problem or situation occurs

1. 1
   RarelyLess than once a month
2. 2
   OccasionallyA few times a month
3. 3
   SometimesWeekly
4. 4
   OftenMultiple times a week
5. 5
   ConstantlyDaily or more

How badly the problem impacts the user when it occurs

1. 1
   Mild inconvenienceNotices but works around easily
2. 2
   AnnoyingFrustrated but can continue
3. 3
   SignificantHas to change approach
4. 4
   SevereStruggles to accomplish goal
5. 5
   BlockerCannot accomplish goal

How important this is to the user when evaluating or using a solution

1. 1
   Nice to haveWould not notice if absent
2. 2
   Somewhat importantPrefer but can live without
3. 3
   ImportantActively looks for this
4. 4
   Very importantKey factor in decision
5. 5
   CriticalDealbreaker if absent

How well the current solution meets the user's need

1. 1
   Very unsatisfiedCurrent solution fails completely
2. 2
   UnsatisfiedCurrent solution inadequate
3. 3
   NeutralAcceptable
4. 4
   SatisfiedWorks well
5. 5
   Very satisfiedExceeds expectations

How much friction or distress the problem causes the user

1. 1
   Barely noticeableMinor friction, easily ignored
2. 2
   MildNoticeable but not a priority to fix
3. 3
   ModerateActively wished it were better
4. 4
   SignificantRegularly disrupts workflow
5. 5
   ExtremeMajor frustration, seeking alternatives

How much positive difference this solution or feature would make

1. 1
   MinimalBarely moves the needle
2. 2
   LowSmall improvement
3. 3
   ModerateNoticeable improvement
4. 4
   HighSignificant improvement
5. 5
   TransformativeGame-changing

How well-evidenced this assessment or judgment is

1. 1
   GuessingNo evidence
2. 2
   HunchAnecdotal evidence
3. 3
   Some evidenceA few data points
4. 4
   ConfidentMultiple data sources
5. 5
   Data-backedStrong quantitative evidence

How much work is required to deliver this

1. 1
   TrivialHours
2. 2
   SmallDays
3. 3
   Medium1-2 weeks
4. 4
   SignificantWeeks to months
5. 5
   MassiveMonths+

Traffic-light delivery health for initiatives, features, and OKRs.

1. 1
   On trackon_trackProgressing as planned; no blockers or material risks.
2. 2
   At riskat_riskBehind plan or facing blockers that may cause a miss without intervention.
3. 3
   Off trackoff_trackSignificantly behind; escalation or scope change required.

How urgently an inbound signal (customer, support, or market) needs to be addressed.

1. 1
   LowlowNo immediate action required; monitor and review at regular cadence.
2. 2
   MediummediumShould be addressed within the current sprint or cycle.
3. 3
   HighhighRequires prompt attention; address before the next planning checkpoint.
4. 4
   CriticalcriticalImmediate action required; escalate now.

Task or strategic priority level. Neutral direction: urgent is not inherently bad; none is not inherently good.

1. 1
   UrgenturgentBlocking progress or time-critical; must be addressed immediately.
2. 2
   HighhighImportant; address in the current sprint or planning cycle.
3. 3
   MediummediumValuable; schedule in the near term when higher priorities are cleared.
4. 4
   LowlowNice to have; address when capacity allows.
5. 5
   NonenoneNo priority assigned, or deliberately deprioritised.

How often a recurring activity, publication, or measurement repeats.

1. 1
   ContinuouscontinuousAlways running; no discrete recurrence interval.
2. 2
   HourlyhourlyRecurs every hour.
3. 3
   DailydailyRecurs every day.
4. 4
   WeeklyweeklyRecurs every week.
5. 5
   MonthlymonthlyRecurs every month.
6. 6
   QuarterlyquarterlyRecurs every calendar quarter.
7. 7
   YearlyyearlyRecurs every year.
8. 8
   On demandon_demandTriggered by an event, not a fixed schedule.
9. 9
   OtherotherRecurs on a cadence not captured by the above tiers.

Epistemic confidence level for assumptions, evidence, and feasibility assessments. Also aliased as LowMedHigh for non-epistemic magnitude properties.

1. 1
   HighhighStrong confidence; evidence is solid or reasoning is well-validated.
2. 2
   MediummediumModerate confidence; some evidence or reasoning gaps remain.
3. 3
   LowlowWeak confidence; significant uncertainty or limited evidence.

Imperative force of a constraint, guideline, or policy rule.

1. 1
   MustmustHard requirement. Violation blocks; no exceptions without an explicit carve-out.
2. 2
   Must notmust_notHard prohibition. Violation blocks; no exceptions without an explicit carve-out.
3. 3
   ExceptionexceptionDocumented carve-out from a must or must_not rule; captures the approved deviation.
4. 4
   WarningwarningSoft signal: should consider and address, but can override with justification.
5. 5
   GuidelineguidelineRecommendation: encouraged and expected in most cases, but not enforced.

How many users experience this problem or benefit from this feature

1. 1
   Almost no oneAffects <5% of users
2. 2
   A fewAffects 5-20% of users
3. 3
   SomeAffects 20-50% of users
4. 4
   MostAffects 50-80% of users
5. 5
   Nearly everyoneAffects >80% of users

How often the problem or situation occurs

1. 1
   RarelyLess than once a month
2. 2
   OccasionallyA few times a month
3. 3
   SometimesWeekly
4. 4
   OftenMultiple times a week
5. 5
   ConstantlyDaily or more

How badly the problem impacts the user when it occurs

1. 1
   Mild inconvenienceNotices but works around easily
2. 2
   AnnoyingFrustrated but can continue
3. 3
   SignificantHas to change approach
4. 4
   SevereStruggles to accomplish goal
5. 5
   BlockerCannot accomplish goal

How important this is to the user when evaluating or using a solution

1. 1
   Nice to haveWould not notice if absent
2. 2
   Somewhat importantPrefer but can live without
3. 3
   ImportantActively looks for this
4. 4
   Very importantKey factor in decision
5. 5
   CriticalDealbreaker if absent

How well the current solution meets the user's need

1. 1
   Very unsatisfiedCurrent solution fails completely
2. 2
   UnsatisfiedCurrent solution inadequate
3. 3
   NeutralAcceptable
4. 4
   SatisfiedWorks well
5. 5
   Very satisfiedExceeds expectations

How much friction or distress the problem causes the user

1. 1
   Barely noticeableMinor friction, easily ignored
2. 2
   MildNoticeable but not a priority to fix
3. 3
   ModerateActively wished it were better
4. 4
   SignificantRegularly disrupts workflow
5. 5
   ExtremeMajor frustration, seeking alternatives

How much positive difference this solution or feature would make

1. 1
   MinimalBarely moves the needle
2. 2
   LowSmall improvement
3. 3
   ModerateNoticeable improvement
4. 4
   HighSignificant improvement
5. 5
   TransformativeGame-changing

How well-evidenced this assessment or judgment is

1. 1
   GuessingNo evidence
2. 2
   HunchAnecdotal evidence
3. 3
   Some evidenceA few data points
4. 4
   ConfidentMultiple data sources
5. 5
   Data-backedStrong quantitative evidence

How much work is required to deliver this

1. 1
   TrivialHours
2. 2
   SmallDays
3. 3
   Medium1-2 weeks
4. 4
   SignificantWeeks to months
5. 5
   MassiveMonths+

Traffic-light delivery health for initiatives, features, and OKRs.

1. 1
   On trackon_trackProgressing as planned; no blockers or material risks.
2. 2
   At riskat_riskBehind plan or facing blockers that may cause a miss without intervention.
3. 3
   Off trackoff_trackSignificantly behind; escalation or scope change required.

How urgently an inbound signal (customer, support, or market) needs to be addressed.

1. 1
   LowlowNo immediate action required; monitor and review at regular cadence.
2. 2
   MediummediumShould be addressed within the current sprint or cycle.
3. 3
   HighhighRequires prompt attention; address before the next planning checkpoint.
4. 4
   CriticalcriticalImmediate action required; escalate now.

Task or strategic priority level. Neutral direction: urgent is not inherently bad; none is not inherently good.

1. 1
   UrgenturgentBlocking progress or time-critical; must be addressed immediately.
2. 2
   HighhighImportant; address in the current sprint or planning cycle.
3. 3
   MediummediumValuable; schedule in the near term when higher priorities are cleared.
4. 4
   LowlowNice to have; address when capacity allows.
5. 5
   NonenoneNo priority assigned, or deliberately deprioritised.

How often a recurring activity, publication, or measurement repeats.

1. 1
   ContinuouscontinuousAlways running; no discrete recurrence interval.
2. 2
   HourlyhourlyRecurs every hour.
3. 3
   DailydailyRecurs every day.
4. 4
   WeeklyweeklyRecurs every week.
5. 5
   MonthlymonthlyRecurs every month.
6. 6
   QuarterlyquarterlyRecurs every calendar quarter.
7. 7
   YearlyyearlyRecurs every year.
8. 8
   On demandon_demandTriggered by an event, not a fixed schedule.
9. 9
   OtherotherRecurs on a cadence not captured by the above tiers.

Epistemic confidence level for assumptions, evidence, and feasibility assessments. Also aliased as LowMedHigh for non-epistemic magnitude properties.

1. 1
   HighhighStrong confidence; evidence is solid or reasoning is well-validated.
2. 2
   MediummediumModerate confidence; some evidence or reasoning gaps remain.
3. 3
   LowlowWeak confidence; significant uncertainty or limited evidence.

Imperative force of a constraint, guideline, or policy rule.

1. 1
   MustmustHard requirement. Violation blocks; no exceptions without an explicit carve-out.
2. 2
   Must notmust_notHard prohibition. Violation blocks; no exceptions without an explicit carve-out.
3. 3
   ExceptionexceptionDocumented carve-out from a must or must_not rule; captures the approved deviation.
4. 4
   WarningwarningSoft signal: should consider and address, but can override with justification.
5. 5
   GuidelineguidelineRecommendation: encouraged and expected in most cases, but not enforced.