074 Audit Rubric 89ce3a0e

# Creative Thinking Audit Rubric

Score each dimension 0-3. Total max = 18 points.

---

## Dimension 1: Originality (Max 3)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 0 | Already exists in market; obvious combination of existing things |
| 1 | Minor variation on existing; incremental improvement |
| 2 | Novel combination or application; fresh perspective |
| 3 | Genuinely new concept; paradigm-shifting potential |

**What to Check:**
- Does this exist already? (Search before scoring)
- How different is this from closest existing solution?
- Would experts be surprised by this?

**Originality Test:**
Ask: "Has anyone done this before?"
- "Yes, exactly this" → Score 0
- "Similar, but with differences" → Score 1
- "Not quite like this" → Score 2
- "I've never seen anything like this" → Score 3

---

## Dimension 2: Feasibility (Max 3)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 0 | Violates physics/law; impossible with any resources |
| 1 | Theoretically possible but requires breakthrough technology/massive resources |
| 2 | Achievable with significant but obtainable resources; some challenges |
| 3 | Clearly buildable with current technology and reasonable resources |

**What to Check:**
- What technology does this require?
- What resources (money, time, talent)?
- What's the biggest implementation obstacle?

**Feasibility Spectrum:**
| Category | Timeframe | Example |
|----------|-----------|---------|
| Ready now | <6 months | New app feature |
| Near-term | 6-24 months | New product line |
| Medium-term | 2-5 years | Requires R&D |
| Long-term | 5+ years | Needs tech breakthrough |
| Impossible | Never | Violates physics |

**Note:** Low feasibility isn't always bad — breakthrough ideas often score 1 initially.

---

## Dimension 3: Value (Max 3)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 0 | No clear problem solved; solution seeking a problem |
| 1 | Solves minor inconvenience; nice-to-have |
| 2 | Solves real problem for defined audience; meaningful improvement |
| 3 | Solves significant pain point; 10x improvement or new capability |

**What to Check:**
- What specific problem does this solve?
- Who has this problem? How many?
- How painful is the problem? (frequency × severity)
- How much better than current solutions?

**Value Assessment:**
| Factor | Question |
|--------|----------|
| Pain severity | How much does the problem hurt? |
| Pain frequency | How often does it occur? |
| Audience size | How many people have this problem? |
| Improvement magnitude | How much better than alternatives? |

---

## Dimension 4: Clarity (Max 3)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 0 | Cannot explain coherently; vague and confused |
| 1 | Explainable but complex; requires long explanation |
| 2 | Clear concept; can explain in 2-3 sentences |
| 3 | Crystal clear; one-sentence explanation, immediately understood |

**What to Check:**
- Can you explain in one sentence?
- Does the explanation require jargon?
- Do listeners immediately "get it"?

**Clarity Test:**
Explain idea to someone unfamiliar. Measure:
- Immediate understanding → Score 3
- "Oh, so like X but Y" → Score 2
- Needs follow-up questions → Score 1
- Still confused after explanation → Score 0

---

## Dimension 5: Defensibility (Max 3)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 0 | Anyone could copy instantly; no barriers |
| 1 | Minor head start; easily replicable |
| 2 | Moderate moat; requires significant effort to copy |
| 3 | Strong defensibility; patents, network effects, unique assets |

**What to Check:**
- How long until competitors copy?
- What would copying require?
- Are there structural advantages?

**Moat Types:**
| Moat | Description | Strength |
|------|-------------|----------|
| Network effects | Value increases with users | Very strong |
| Switching costs | Painful to leave | Strong |
| Proprietary tech | Patents, trade secrets | Medium-strong |
| Brand | Trust and recognition | Medium |
| Scale economies | Cost advantages at size | Medium |
| Head start | First mover | Weak |
| None | Pure execution | Very weak |

---

## Dimension 6: Scalability (Max 3)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 0 | Inherently limited; can't grow beyond small scale |
| 1 | Some growth possible but hits ceiling quickly |
| 2 | Scalable with effort; growth requires proportional resources |
| 3 | Highly scalable; digital/network effects enable massive scale |

**What to Check:**
- Does serving 10x users require 10x resources?
- Are there inherent scale limitations?
- Can this become a platform?

**Scalability Spectrum:**
| Model | Scalability | Example |
|-------|-------------|---------|
| Software/Digital | Very high | SaaS product |
| Platform | Very high | Marketplace |
| Content/Media | High | Publishing |
| Productized service | Medium | Consulting → tools |
| Service | Low | Consulting |
| Physical | Low-Medium | Manufacturing |

---

## Scoring Summary

| Dimension | Max |
|-----------|-----|
| Originality | 3 |
| Feasibility | 3 |
| Value | 3 |
| Clarity | 3 |
| Defensibility | 3 |
| Scalability | 3 |
| **Total** | **18** |

### Score Interpretation

| Range | Verdict | Action |
|-------|---------|--------|
| 15-18 | Breakthrough | Develop immediately; high priority |
| 11-14 | Promising | Worth pursuing; address gaps |
| 7-10 | Incremental | May be worth it; significant work needed |
| <7 | Weak | Pivot or abandon; fundamental issues |

### Score Profiles

**The Moonshot** (High originality, low feasibility)
- Scores: Originality 3, Feasibility 1, Value 3
- Action: Worth exploring if you can improve feasibility

**The Me-Too** (Low originality, high feasibility)
- Scores: Originality 1, Feasibility 3, Value 2
- Action: Needs differentiation; why will you win?

**The Vitamin** (High feasibility, low value)
- Scores: Originality 2, Feasibility 3, Value 1
- Action: Find more painful problem or niche

**The Breakthrough** (High across board)
- Scores: 3s or 2s everywhere
- Action: Move fast; validate assumptions

---

## Calibration Examples

### Score 16 (Breakthrough)

**Idea:** Language model that can write code (2020)

| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Originality | 3 | New paradigm for programming |
| Feasibility | 2 | Required significant R&D but achievable |
| Value | 3 | Massive productivity unlock |
| Clarity | 3 | "AI writes code from English" |
| Defensibility | 2 | Data and compute moats |
| Scalability | 3 | Pure software |

### Score 9 (Incremental)

**Idea:** Another food delivery app

| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Originality | 0 | Market saturated |
| Feasibility | 3 | Known problem, proven model |
| Value | 2 | Solves real problem |
| Clarity | 3 | Well understood |
| Defensibility | 0 | No moat |
| Scalability | 1 | Requires local operations |

### Score 5 (Weak)

**Idea:** Blockchain for restaurant reservations

| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Originality | 1 | Blockchain applied to random domain |
| Feasibility | 2 | Technically possible |
| Value | 0 | Solves no real problem |
| Clarity | 1 | Why blockchain? Unclear benefit |
| Defensibility | 0 | No moat |
| Scalability | 1 | Network effects weak |