# Scoring Rubric

Score transformed text on 8 criteria (1-5 scale each). Minimum passing: 32/40 (80%).

---

## 1. Directness (1-5)

Does the text get to the point without hedging or softening?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | Opens with main point. No qualifiers, no throat-clearing. Every sentence advances the argument. |
| 4 | Minimal hedging. One or two soft qualifiers. Gets to point within first sentence. |
| 3 | Some unnecessary setup. A few hedging phrases. Main point clear but delayed. |
| 2 | Multiple hedges per paragraph. Excessive qualifiers. Main point buried. |
| 1 | Constant hedging. Throat-clearing openers. Reader must hunt for the point. |

**Red flags:** "It's worth noting," "To be fair," "I think," "Perhaps," "Maybe," "Kind of," "Sort of"

---

## 2. Natural Rhythm (1-5)

Does sentence length vary naturally? Does it read like speech, not template?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | Sentence lengths vary 8-25 words naturally. Mix of structures. No mechanical patterns. |
| 4 | Good variance. One or two repetitive structures. Flows well overall. |
| 3 | Some variance but noticeable patterns. Occasional monotony. |
| 2 | Most sentences similar length. Obvious templated rhythm. |
| 1 | Robotic uniformity. Every sentence same structure. Machine-generated feel. |

**Test:** Read aloud. Does it sound like a person talking?

---

## 3. Concrete Verbs (1-5)

Are verbs specific and active, or abstract and passive?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | All verbs concrete and specific. Actions you can visualize. No abstract placeholders. |
| 4 | Mostly concrete verbs. One or two abstract (leverage, utilize). |
| 3 | Mix of concrete and abstract. Some passive voice. |
| 2 | Dominated by abstract verbs. Heavy passive voice. |
| 1 | Almost entirely abstract verbs. "Utilize," "leverage," "navigate" throughout. |

**Red flags:** leverage, utilize, facilitate, implement, optimize, navigate, unpack, foster

**Good verbs:** build, cut, fix, send, write, call, test, ship, break

---

## 4. Reader Trust (1-5)

Does the text trust the reader, or over-explain and patronize?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | Assumes reader competence. No stating the obvious. Respects intelligence. |
| 4 | Mostly trusting. One instance of over-explanation. |
| 3 | Some hand-holding. Occasional obvious statements. |
| 2 | Frequent over-explanation. Multiple obvious statements. |
| 1 | Constant patronizing. "Think about it," "Let that sink in," "In other words." |

**Red flags:** "Think about it," "Let that sink in," "In other words," "To put it simply," "As you know"

---

## 5. Human Authenticity (1-5)

Does the text sound like a person wrote it, or an AI performing humanity? This criterion evaluates both the absence of AI patterns and the presence of human voice.

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | Could have been written by a specific person. Has voice, opinion, and lived experience. Rhythm varies naturally. Reader can sense the author's personality. |
| 4 | Sounds human. Clear perspective. Minor generic patches. Mostly specific with occasional abstraction. |
| 3 | Clean but anonymous. No glaring AI tells, but no personality either. Could be anyone. Reads as competent but soulless. |
| 2 | Generic tone. Multiple AI patterns. Corporate-neutral. Hedges everything. No first person, no specificity, no stance. |
| 1 | Obvious AI. Performative emphasis, binary contrasts, dramatic fragmentation. Significance inflation, promotional language, chatbot artifacts. |

**Red flags (AI tells):** "Full stop." "Period." "Let me be clear." Stacked short sentences for effect. Rhetorical questions answered immediately. Significance inflation ("stands as a testament"). Promotional language ("nestled", "boasts"). Superficial -ing analyses. Vague attributions ("experts argue"). Copula avoidance ("serves as a"). Communication artifacts ("I hope this helps").

**Red flags (soulless):** No opinions stated. No first person. Every claim hedged. Uniform sentence rhythm. No specific names, numbers, or dates. Balanced-to-a-fault framing. Sanitized vocabulary only. See `references/personality-guide.md` for detailed guidance.

---

## 6. Content Density (1-5)

What's the ratio of substance to filler?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | Every word necessary. No filler. Dense with information or insight. |
| 4 | Minimal filler. One or two unnecessary phrases. Tight overall. |
| 3 | Some padding. A few filler phrases. Content present but diluted. |
| 2 | Significant padding. Multiple filler phrases per paragraph. |
| 1 | More filler than content. Adverb-heavy. "In today's landscape" type phrases throughout. |

**Filler indicators:** "At its core," "In today's [X]," "When it comes to," "At the end of the day," "Moving forward"

---

## 7. Fact Preservation (1-5)

Are all factual elements from the original intact?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | All facts preserved exactly. Numbers, names, dates, URLs unchanged. |
| 4 | All facts preserved. Minor rephrasing of non-critical details. |
| 3 | Most facts preserved. One minor fact altered. |
| 2 | Some facts missing or changed. |
| 1 | Significant fact loss or alteration. |

**Must preserve:** Numbers, percentages, dates, proper nouns, URLs, quotes, technical terms, citations

---

## 8. Template Avoidance (1-5)

Is the structure organic, or following AI templates?

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 5 | Unique structure. No recognizable AI patterns. Organic flow. |
| 4 | Mostly organic. One minor template echo. |
| 3 | Some template patterns. Binary contrasts or lists visible. |
| 2 | Multiple template patterns. Predictable structure. |
| 1 | Full AI template. Three-item lists, binary contrasts, dramatic fragments throughout. |

**Template patterns:**
- "Not X. Y." binary contrasts
- "X. That's it. That's the [thing]." fragments
- "Think about it:" setups
- Exactly three items in every list
- Every paragraph ending with punch

---

## Scoring Guide

| Total | Assessment |
|-------|------------|
| 40 | Perfect—indistinguishable from skilled human writer |
| 36-39 | Excellent—occasional minor tells |
| 32-35 | Passing—clearly human, some AI influence |
| 28-31 | Needs work—AI patterns visible |
| 24-27 | Significant issues—AI-forward |
| <24 | Fail—reads as AI-generated |

**Minimum passing score: 32/40 (80%)**

---

## Quick Scoring Checklist

```
□ Directness: Opens with point? No hedging?     [  /5]
□ Rhythm: Sentence lengths vary 8-25 words?     [  /5]
□ Verbs: Concrete, active, specific?            [  /5]
□ Trust: No over-explaining? Respects reader?   [  /5]
□ Authenticity: Sounds like a person?           [  /5]
□ Density: Substance over filler?               [  /5]
□ Facts: All facts preserved exactly?           [  /5]
□ Structure: No AI templates?                   [  /5]
                                         TOTAL: [  /40]
```