Candidate A
3.80/5Strongest balanced fit under the stated assumptionsIllustrative sample
Platform Evaluation Sample
A worked example of disclosed criteria, weighting, evidence, assumptions, dissent, and a decision record. Candidate names and scores are illustrative and do not represent a client evaluation or market ranking.
Weighted capability matrix
Make the scoring model visible before the candidates are judged.
Scores use a five-point illustrative scale. The weight reflects decision importance; the evidence column names the record expected to support the score.
CriterionWeightABCEvidence expected
Identity and access20%432
Architecture documentation and control demonstration
Data protection and residency20%354
Contract, deployment boundary, and security review
Model and provider flexibility15%534
Capability documentation and adapter review
Operating fit and support20%443
Operating model, support terms, and reference evidence
Cost accountability and contract15%345
Pricing model, usage records, and contract assumptions
Migration and reversibility10%423
Export, portability, dependency, and exit-path review
Candidate B
3.65/5Strong data controls; greater migration dependencyCandidate C
3.45/5Strong commercial fit; more operating work requiredEvidence ledger
A score is a conclusion. Preserve the evidence behind it.
The ledger connects a material claim to its source and current status. Unsupported, conditional, and pilot-dependent claims remain visible rather than being averaged away.
ClaimPrimary evidenceStatus
Directory integration supports the required role model
Configuration demonstration and identity documentation
SupportedResidency boundary fits the target data classes
Deployment architecture, contract terms, and security review
Supported with conditionApproved models can be changed without releases across consuming applications
Architecture review and focused technical test
Requires pilotUsage can be attributed to team and business purpose
Billing export and audit-record demonstration
SupportedAssumptions register
Show which conditions make the recommendation valid.
An assumption is not a footnote. It is a condition that can change the score, shortlist, pilot, contract position, or final decision.
- 01
The organization requires directory-driven provisioning and role-based access.
- 02
Sensitive data must remain within the approved processing and residency boundary.
- 03
More than one model provider may be required during the planning horizon.
- 04
Usage and cost must be attributable to a named team or business purpose.
- 05
The recommendation must preserve an exit path that can be described before contract signature.
Illustrative decision record
Recommendation, condition, dissent, and next action belong in the same record.
Candidate A is the illustrative recommendation because it provides the strongest balanced score across identity, provider flexibility, operating fit, and reversibility under the stated assumptions.
Proceed only after a focused pilot confirms registry-driven model change, permitted record capture, cost attribution, and the target identity path.
Candidate B remains the stronger option when residency and native data controls receive greater weight than provider flexibility and migration independence.
Confirm weights with decision owners, resolve the contract assumptions, and write the pilot gates before technical work begins.
How to interpret this sample
The structure is reusable. The criteria, weights, evidence, and recommendation are engagement-specific.
What the sample demonstrates
- Criteria and weights disclosed before scoring
- Claims connected to named evidence sources
- Assumptions and conditions retained in the decision
- Dissent kept visible instead of edited out
- A pilot used only where evidence remains unresolved
What it does not claim
- That the candidates represent named vendors
- That the scores apply to another organization
- That a weighted total replaces architecture or contract judgment
- That the illustrative recommendation should be reused
- That a pilot is required when primary evidence is sufficient
Use the method to make a decision that can be reconstructed and challenged.