Compiled the supplied vendor requirements into a source-grounded Evidence-Weighted Evaluation Rubric. The four source weights remain exact, the critical-security condition stays outside the weighted average as a hard gate, and the scoring template is directly usable for repeated vendor reviews. # Evidence-Weighted Evaluation Rubric ## Evaluation Contract Evaluation target: vendor selection. Source-preserved weights: Security 40%, Implementation 30%, Support 20%, Price 10%. Hard gate: any critical security gap disqualifies the vendor regardless of weighted score. Scoring convention: 1–5 evidence scale is used as a transparent operating default because the source supplies weights but no rating scale. Positive selection threshold: not supplied. Eligible vendors can be ranked by weighted score; no invented pass cutoff is added. ## Criterion Architecture | Criterion | Weight | Source role | Gate status | |---|---:|---|---| | Security | 40% | Weighted evaluation dimension | Also contains a hard disqualifier | | Implementation | 30% | Weighted evaluation dimension | Ordinary weighted criterion | | Support | 20% | Weighted evaluation dimension | Ordinary weighted criterion | | Price | 10% | Weighted evaluation dimension | Ordinary weighted criterion | The four criteria total 100%, so no weight normalization is needed. Security is not split into multiple scored criteria because the source gives one security weight and one separate critical-gap rule. ## Rating Anchors Use the same 1–5 evidence-quality convention for each weighted criterion unless a later source defines criterion-specific anchors: - 1 — evidence shows the requirement is materially unmet or unsupported. - 2 — limited evidence; major gaps remain. - 3 — evidence supports the requirement at an acceptable baseline. - 4 — strong evidence with only minor limitations. - 5 — clear, complete evidence materially stronger than the baseline requirement. These are scoring conventions, not claims that the source supplied detailed vendor-performance definitions. ## Evidence Rules - Score only evidence actually provided for the vendor under review. - Record one short evidence note beside every criterion score. - Missing evidence cannot be silently treated as strong performance. - A critical security gap must be recorded separately from the ordinary Security score. - Do not infer implementation capability, support quality, or price value from another criterion. ## Decision Rules 1. Check the critical-security hard gate before ranking by total score. 2. If a critical security gap exists, outcome = DISQUALIFIED; do not rescue the vendor with scores from other criteria. 3. If no critical security gap exists, calculate weighted score as `(Security×0.40) + (Implementation×0.30) + (Support×0.20) + (Price×0.10)`. 4. Rank eligible vendors by weighted score when comparison is needed. 5. Do not claim PASS, SELECT, or APPROVE from a numeric cutoff because the source gives no positive threshold. ## Evaluation Template Vendor: __________ Reviewer: __________ | Criterion | Weight | Score 1–5 | Evidence note | Weighted points | |---|---:|---:|---|---:| | Security | 40% | | | | | Implementation | 30% | | | | | Support | 20% | | | | | Price | 10% | | | | Critical security gap present: Yes / No Hard-gate outcome: Eligible / Disqualified Weighted score if eligible: ____ / 5.00 Decision status: Ranked / Disqualified / Review ## Worked Proof Illustrative vendor only; these are not source facts. Scores: Security 4, Implementation 3, Support 4, Price 2; critical security gap = No. Weighted score = 4×0.40 + 3×0.30 + 4×0.20 + 2×0.10 = 3.50 / 5.00. Outcome: Eligible for ranking at 3.50. No final approval threshold is asserted because none was supplied. ## Source Boundaries - The source does not define what evidence constitutes a critical security gap; reviewers need the buyer's actual security standard for that classification. - The source does not provide criterion-specific rating anchors, so the 1–5 anchors above are disclosed generic evidence anchors. - The source does not provide a minimum weighted score for selection. - Criteria trace to source requirements. - Rating anchors are explicit. - Decision rules preserve hard gates. - Evaluation template is directly usable. - No hidden dependency. - No unsupported runtime claim.