Module 4: Scoring and Presentation

Duration: ~75 minutes self-paced Prerequisites: Modules 1-3 Learning objectives: - Apply the standard scoring rubric consistently across dimensions - Recognize and avoid the four common scoring biases - Generate a Maturity Map radar chart from scored findings - Write an executive summary that lands with both technical and non-technical audiences - Present results in a way that motivates action without inducing despair

4.1 The Scoring Rubric

For each dimension, the score is determined by the highest level for which all criteria are met. If a client meets 4 of 5 Level 3 criteria, they score Level 2.

This is conservative on purpose. A client who "almost" makes Level 3 will frequently regress under stress. You want the score to reflect what holds up on a bad day, not the best day.

Use the per-dimension rubric in framework/SDC_Maturity_Framework_v0.1.md. Do not invent intermediate scores ("3.5"). Round down.

4.2 The Four Scoring Biases

Bias 1: Over-scoring to please the client

You like the client. You want them to feel good. You round up.

Counter: Tell yourself the score is for the client's benefit, not their ego. An honest 2 motivates change. A flattering 3 produces complacency.

Bias 2: Under-scoring to create urgency

You want the engagement. A scary score sells the implementation.

Counter: Cite specific evidence for every score. If you cannot point to an artifact or quote that justifies the score, raise it.

Bias 3: Halo effect

The client is impressive in one area, so you assume they are competent in others.

Counter: Score each dimension in isolation. Cover the previous dimension's score with your hand while scoring the next.

Bias 4: Anchoring on the last client

Your previous client was a disaster. Now everyone looks good by comparison.

Counter: Score against the rubric, not against memory. The rubric is the anchor.

4.3 Generating the Radar Chart

The chart is generated by tools/maturity_chart.py (provided) or by uploading the scoring CSV to the SDC Maturity Map online tool.

Layout convention: - Foundational dimensions on the left half (Schema, Constraints, Identity) - Derived dimensions on the right half (Provenance, Interop, Governance) - Level 3 ring drawn in green ("on track") - Client polygon drawn in their brand color or neutral grey - Floor constraint annotation: a horizontal line at min(foundational) extending across all axes

The annotation is the most important visual element. It is the moment the client physically sees that their Governance and Interoperability scores are capped by their schema and identity scores.

4.4 The Executive Summary

The report has three audiences:

  1. The owner who paid for it and will decide what happens next
  2. The technical lead who has to implement
  3. A future stakeholder (board, investor, regulator) who will see the report years from now

Write a one-page executive summary that all three can read. Structure:

# Maturity Map: [Client Name]
Date: [date]
Assessor: [your name, SDC Certified Practitioner]

## Headline finding
[One sentence. The single most important thing.]

## Current state
[Three sentences. Where they are. No jargon.]

## The constraint
[Two sentences. What is capping them. Reference the floor constraint.]

## Recommended next step
[One sentence. The single highest-leverage action.]

## Detailed scores
[The radar chart, then a table of scores with one-line justifications.]

Resist the urge to write three pages. The owner will read one page. Anything more goes in the appendix.

4.5 Presenting to a Mixed Audience

When you walk through the report live (Session 2), follow this sequence:

  1. Recap pain (2 min): Restate the pain points the client raised in Session 1. This shows you listened.
  2. Show the chart (1 min): No commentary. Let them look.
  3. Explain the floor (3 min): Walk through the floor constraint. Use their data, not abstract theory.
  4. Score-by-score (15 min): For each dimension, share the score, the evidence, and one concrete example from their environment.
  5. The recommended next step (5 min): Frame as "the single thing that unlocks the most other things."
  6. Q&A (15 min): Be ready for "but our [vendor] said we were fine." Have the evidence ready.
  7. Next engagement options (5 min): Hand over the proposal cover sheet. Do not pitch in this meeting.

4.6 Common Client Reactions and How to Handle Them

"This is too negative." Response: "These scores reflect what we found in your data, with examples. I would rather you see this from me than from a regulator or a failed integration. The good news is the gap is fixable, and we have a structured way to do it."

"Our IT vendor said we were fine." Response: "Your IT vendor is probably correct about the systems running. The map measures the data layer, not the systems layer. They are different problems. Want me to show you the specific examples?"

"Can you just give us a 4?" Response: "If I did that, the report would not be useful to you. The score has to be defensible to your future board, investors, or auditor. The path from 2 to 4 is what we are here to plan."

"We don't have budget." Response: "Understood. The Tier 1 recommendations in this report can be done with existing tools and a few hours of time. Let's start there. The bigger interventions can wait until you see results."

Module 4 Exercise

Take the fictional findings worksheet exercises/findings_atlas_legal.md and produce: 1. A scoring decision per dimension with cited evidence 2. A one-page executive summary using the template 3. A list of three reactions you anticipate from the client and your prepared responses

Compare your scoring to the reference key in exercises/answers/findings_atlas_legal.md. Discrepancies of more than 1 level on any dimension indicate you should re-read Module 2.