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 strongly a proxy metric predicts the direct measure it stands in for.

1. 1
   StrongstrongTracks the direct measure closely; a reliable stand-in.
2. 2
   ModeratemoderateCorrelates with the direct measure but with meaningful slippage.
3. 3
   WeakweakLoosely related; use with caution and corroborate.

Maturity of a root-cause determination during incident debugging: how far a proposed cause has been validated.

1. 1
   HypothesisedhypothesisedA proposed cause, not yet tested against evidence.
2. 2
   LikelylikelySupported by evidence but not conclusively proven.
3. 3
   ConfirmedconfirmedVerified as the cause; reproduced or otherwise established.

A person's comfort with a tool, technology, or practice. Closed set so personas compare on the same axis across products.

1. 1
   LowlowLittle or no familiarity; needs guidance to proceed.
2. 2
   MediummediumFunctional, everyday competence.
3. 3
   HighhighConfident, fluent use without assistance.
4. 4
   ExpertexpertDeep mastery; can teach others or extend the tool.
5. 5
   OtherotherA comfort profile not captured by the above tiers.

Operational verbosity of a monitor or alert signal. How loud the signal should be, not how bad an outcome is for the user (kept distinct from severity_5).

1. 1
   CriticalcriticalPage immediately; the signal is service-affecting.
2. 2
   WarningwarningNeeds attention soon; not yet service-affecting.
3. 3
   InfoinfoInformational; no action required.

Paging-tier classification of an incident, driving escalation and response process. Distinct from user-impact severity_5 and from LogLevel.

1. 1
   SEV1sev1Critical outage; full response, executive-visible.
2. 2
   SEV2sev2Major degradation; urgent response.
3. 3
   SEV3sev3Minor or partial impact; handled within hours.
4. 4
   SEV4sev4Negligible impact; routine handling.

Sentiment polarity of an inbound signal (feedback, support, customer).

1. 1
   PositivepositiveFavourable signal; satisfaction or advocacy.
2. 2
   NeutralneutralNo clear positive or negative lean.
3. 3
   NegativenegativeUnfavourable signal; dissatisfaction or risk.
4. 4
   MixedmixedContains both positive and negative elements.

Capability or process maturity on the CMMI ladder.

1. 1
   InitialinitialAd hoc and unpredictable; little process.
2. 2
   DevelopingdevelopingBasic process emerging but inconsistent.
3. 3
   DefineddefinedDocumented, standardised process in place.
4. 4
   ManagedmanagedMeasured and controlled against objectives.
5. 5
   OptimizingoptimizingContinuous, data-driven improvement.

WCAG accessibility conformance level.

1. 1
   AAMinimum conformance; essential barriers removed.
2. 2
   AAAAAddresses the most common barriers; the usual legal target.
3. 3
   AAAAAAHighest level; not achievable for all content.

Data classification tier governing handling and access.

1. 1
   PublicpublicNo restriction; safe to disclose openly.
2. 2
   InternalinternalFor internal use; not for external release.
3. 3
   ConfidentialconfidentialSensitive; restricted to a need-to-know basis.
4. 4
   RestrictedrestrictedHighly sensitive; strict controls and auditing.

Learner difficulty tier for educational content.

1. 1
   BeginnerbeginnerNo prior knowledge assumed.
2. 2
   IntermediateintermediateAssumes working familiarity with the basics.
3. 3
   AdvancedadvancedAssumes deep, expert-level background.

Qualitative how-often rating. Distinct from the numeric frequency_5 scale and from Cadence calendar tiers.

1. 1
   ConstantconstantEffectively always; continuous occurrence.
2. 2
   RegularregularHappens on a predictable, recurring basis.
3. 3
   OccasionaloccasionalHappens sometimes, without a fixed pattern.
4. 4
   RarerareHappens infrequently.
5. 5
   OtherotherA frequency not captured by the above tiers.

Direction of evidence relative to a claim. Distinct from confidence_impact (strengthens/weakens) per the UPG-579 polysemy verdicts.

1. 1
   SupportssupportsThe evidence backs the claim.
2. 2
   RefutesrefutesThe evidence contradicts the claim.
3. 3
   NeutralneutralThe evidence is inconclusive either way.

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 strongly a proxy metric predicts the direct measure it stands in for.

1. 1
   StrongstrongTracks the direct measure closely; a reliable stand-in.
2. 2
   ModeratemoderateCorrelates with the direct measure but with meaningful slippage.
3. 3
   WeakweakLoosely related; use with caution and corroborate.

Maturity of a root-cause determination during incident debugging: how far a proposed cause has been validated.

1. 1
   HypothesisedhypothesisedA proposed cause, not yet tested against evidence.
2. 2
   LikelylikelySupported by evidence but not conclusively proven.
3. 3
   ConfirmedconfirmedVerified as the cause; reproduced or otherwise established.

A person's comfort with a tool, technology, or practice. Closed set so personas compare on the same axis across products.

1. 1
   LowlowLittle or no familiarity; needs guidance to proceed.
2. 2
   MediummediumFunctional, everyday competence.
3. 3
   HighhighConfident, fluent use without assistance.
4. 4
   ExpertexpertDeep mastery; can teach others or extend the tool.
5. 5
   OtherotherA comfort profile not captured by the above tiers.

Operational verbosity of a monitor or alert signal. How loud the signal should be, not how bad an outcome is for the user (kept distinct from severity_5).

1. 1
   CriticalcriticalPage immediately; the signal is service-affecting.
2. 2
   WarningwarningNeeds attention soon; not yet service-affecting.
3. 3
   InfoinfoInformational; no action required.

Paging-tier classification of an incident, driving escalation and response process. Distinct from user-impact severity_5 and from LogLevel.

1. 1
   SEV1sev1Critical outage; full response, executive-visible.
2. 2
   SEV2sev2Major degradation; urgent response.
3. 3
   SEV3sev3Minor or partial impact; handled within hours.
4. 4
   SEV4sev4Negligible impact; routine handling.

Sentiment polarity of an inbound signal (feedback, support, customer).

1. 1
   PositivepositiveFavourable signal; satisfaction or advocacy.
2. 2
   NeutralneutralNo clear positive or negative lean.
3. 3
   NegativenegativeUnfavourable signal; dissatisfaction or risk.
4. 4
   MixedmixedContains both positive and negative elements.

Capability or process maturity on the CMMI ladder.

1. 1
   InitialinitialAd hoc and unpredictable; little process.
2. 2
   DevelopingdevelopingBasic process emerging but inconsistent.
3. 3
   DefineddefinedDocumented, standardised process in place.
4. 4
   ManagedmanagedMeasured and controlled against objectives.
5. 5
   OptimizingoptimizingContinuous, data-driven improvement.

WCAG accessibility conformance level.

1. 1
   AAMinimum conformance; essential barriers removed.
2. 2
   AAAAAddresses the most common barriers; the usual legal target.
3. 3
   AAAAAAHighest level; not achievable for all content.

Data classification tier governing handling and access.

1. 1
   PublicpublicNo restriction; safe to disclose openly.
2. 2
   InternalinternalFor internal use; not for external release.
3. 3
   ConfidentialconfidentialSensitive; restricted to a need-to-know basis.
4. 4
   RestrictedrestrictedHighly sensitive; strict controls and auditing.

Learner difficulty tier for educational content.

1. 1
   BeginnerbeginnerNo prior knowledge assumed.
2. 2
   IntermediateintermediateAssumes working familiarity with the basics.
3. 3
   AdvancedadvancedAssumes deep, expert-level background.

Qualitative how-often rating. Distinct from the numeric frequency_5 scale and from Cadence calendar tiers.

1. 1
   ConstantconstantEffectively always; continuous occurrence.
2. 2
   RegularregularHappens on a predictable, recurring basis.
3. 3
   OccasionaloccasionalHappens sometimes, without a fixed pattern.
4. 4
   RarerareHappens infrequently.
5. 5
   OtherotherA frequency not captured by the above tiers.

Direction of evidence relative to a claim. Distinct from confidence_impact (strengthens/weakens) per the UPG-579 polysemy verdicts.

1. 1
   SupportssupportsThe evidence backs the claim.
2. 2
   RefutesrefutesThe evidence contradicts the claim.
3. 3
   NeutralneutralThe evidence is inconclusive either way.