Program completion criteria: All three program metrics must reach “Ready” in a single integrated capstone scenario. This rubric is used by both the participant (self-assessment) and a facilitator or peer assessor. Scores must align: significant discrepancy between self-assessment and peer assessment is itself a signal worth discussing.
Metric 1: Discovery Audit
Target: 3 or more unstated business constraints surfaced from the capstone scenario that were not present in the original scenario brief.
| Constraint surfaced | How it was surfaced (technique used) | Was it unstated in the brief? (Y/N) |
|---|
| 1. | | |
| 2. | | |
| 3. | | |
| 4. (bonus) | | |
| Score | Description | Self | Assessor |
|---|
| 3: Ready | 3+ genuinely unstated constraints surfaced with technique named. Constraints are specific (named cost, named stakeholder, named deadline), not generic. | | |
| 2: Developing | 1–2 unstated constraints surfaced, or 3 constraints surfaced but one or more were obvious from the scenario brief. | | |
| 1: Not Ready | Only surface-level constraints named. No use of silence, artifacts, or Inversion Method. Discovery looks like a question-and-answer exercise, not constraint archaeology. | | |
Metric 2: Jargon-Free Test
Target: Explain the capstone architecture decision to the Meridian CFO (non-technical financial executive) using 5 or fewer unexplained acronyms. Time limit: 90 seconds.
Acronyms used (list each one)
The one-sentence CFO explanation (write it out exactly as delivered)
| Score | Description | Self | Assessor |
|---|
| 3: Ready | ≤5 acronyms. CFO-equivalent explanation is clear, specific, and leads with business outcome. No technical credibility substituting for business relevance. | | |
| 2: Developing | 6–9 acronyms, or acronyms used but partially explained. Explanation is technically accurate but starts with technology rather than business outcome. | | |
| 1: Not Ready | 10+ acronyms, or CFO explanation requires technical background to understand. Decision is described in architectural terms, not business terms. | | |
Metric 3: Consensus Score
Target: 4/5 or higher average on the five-question post-War Room survey, across all participants.
Lowest-scoring question and the participant comment (if any) explaining the low score
| Score | Description | Self | Assessor |
|---|
| 3: Ready | Average 4.0 or higher across all five questions and all participants. No individual question averaged below 3.5. | | |
| 2: Developing | Average 3.0–3.9, or one question averaged below 3.0. Decision was produced but participants felt the process was rushed or their constraints were not fully captured. | | |
| 1: Not Ready | Average below 3.0, or no decision was documented within the War Room time-box. Stakeholders felt unheard or manipulated toward a pre-determined outcome. | | |
Module-by-Module Integration Assessment
| Module | Evidence of integration in capstone | Score (1–3) | Assessor notes |
|---|
| M01: Discovery | | | |
| M02: Financial Fluency | | | |
| M03: Visual Communication | | | |
| M04: Influence | | | |
| M05: Objection Handling | | | |
| M06: Radical Transparency | | | |
| M07: Narrative | | | |
| M08: Decision Latency | | | |
Program Completion Determination
| Metric | Self Score | Assessor Score | Discrepancy >1? (discuss) | Final Status |
|---|
| Discovery Audit | | | | Ready / Not Ready |
| Jargon-Free Test | | | | Ready / Not Ready |
| Consensus Score | | | | Ready / Not Ready |
Assessor Comments
Specific strength demonstrated in the capstone
The one skill or behavior this participant most needs to develop in the next 90 days
Recommended next engagement context to apply these skills