How the Workflow Integrity Score is formed.
This page explains, transparently, how the score is produced, what it measures, and what it does not, so you can judge it for yourself.
Why we score.
A score turns a complex assessment into a clear, comparable signal of reviewability posture, so an executive can see where a workflow stands and what to prioritize.
-
A clear signal
A score turns a complex assessment into a clear signal of reviewability posture.
-
Comparability
The same method every time means results are easier to compare within a defined scope.
-
Transparency over arbitrariness
A transparent model makes the signal easier to understand and review rather than arbitrary.
What the score measures.
The score assesses reviewability posture: how well a workflow’s important decisions are evidence-bound, approval-traceable, exception-aware, recorded, and reconstructable. It assesses the reviewability structure around decisions, not their business correctness.
The six assessment domains.
These are the existing six pillars, not new ones, presented as the basis of the score.
- Reviewability Can the decision be reviewed after the fact?
- Evidence Integrity Is evidence present, retained, and bound to the decision?
- Approval Traceability Do approvals carry identity and rationale?
- Exception Visibility Are missing or invalid inputs routed and recorded?
- Decision Reconstruction Can the decision be reconstructed from retained records?
- Operational Accountability Is ownership clear across the workflow?
How the domains are evaluated.
Higher scores reflect structure that is present and connected, not reconstructed after the fact.
How we evaluate evidence.
- Required
- Captured at the moment
- Retained
- Bound to the decision
- Changes detectable
How we evaluate approvals.
- Recorded
- Identity captured
- Rationale captured
- Linked to evidence
- Present where required
How we evaluate exceptions.
- Detected
- Routed to a person
- Recorded
- Resolved with notes
How we evaluate reconstruction.
- Complete retained records
- Designed to be tamper-evident
- Supports reconstruction
- Checked for reconstruction readiness
Each item scored 0, 1, or 2.
Within each domain, specific items are scored on a simple, explicit scale. Explicit anchors reduce subjectivity and support repeatable scoring.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Absent or not evident |
| 1 | Partial or inconsistent |
| 2 | Present and consistent |
From items to a final score.
The logic is open; the engine is private.
- Score items against explicit anchors.
- Aggregate item scores within each domain.
- Combine the domains into a single 0 to 100 Workflow Integrity Score.
- Apply the consistent method so results are easier to compare within the assessed scope.
The exact weighting and the commercial engine are proprietary. The logic and the anchors are open. We do not publish formulas.
The Workflow Integrity Score.
A 0 to 100 summary of reviewability posture for the assessed workflow, where higher indicates stronger reviewability, evidence linkage, and reconstruction readiness. It summarizes posture, not correctness or compliance.
The Executive Grade.
A single letter that summarizes the same posture for executives alongside the numeric score, as a quick read from a stronger posture to a weaker one. It is not a compliance grade.
How to interpret the score.
-
A high score
The workflow’s decisions appear to have stronger reviewability, evidence linkage, and reconstruction readiness.
-
A low score
Significant reviewability gaps that make decisions harder to explain or review later.
-
What a score cannot prove
It cannot prove a decision was correct, cannot prove compliance, and is not a guarantee.
Illustrative scoring scenarios.
These are illustrative examples, not real assessments.
| # | Situation | Domain | Item score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Approval recorded with identity, rationale, and linked evidence | Approval Traceability | 2 |
| 2 | Approval recorded but without linked evidence | Approval Traceability | 1 |
| 3 | No recorded approver for a key decision | Approval Traceability | 0 |
| 4 | Evidence captured at the decision and retained | Evidence Integrity | 2 |
| 5 | Evidence referenced but not retained | Evidence Integrity | 1 |
| 6 | No evidence captured for the decision | Evidence Integrity | 0 |
| 7 | Exceptions routed to a person and recorded with notes | Exception Visibility | 2 |
| 8 | Exceptions handled in email, inconsistently recorded | Exception Visibility | 1 |
| 9 | Exceptions resolved with no record | Exception Visibility | 0 |
| 10 | Decision reconstruction supported by complete, retained records | Decision Reconstruction | 2 |
| 11 | Decision reconstruction partly supported, some records missing | Decision Reconstruction | 1 |
| 12 | Decision reconstruction not supported after time passes | Decision Reconstruction | 0 |
Illustrative only. No real data, no named entities.
Transparency principles.
- The score assesses reviewability posture, not correctness.
- Every item is scored against an explicit anchor.
- A consistent method is applied every time, so results are easier to compare within the assessed scope.
- The domains and anchors are public.
- The exact weighting and the engine are private, and we say so.
- A score is a signal, not a verdict.
- We state what the score does not measure.
- We do not present the score as compliance, legal standing, or a guarantee.
- We do not compare the score to fabricated benchmarks.
- Illustrative examples are labeled as illustrative.
- A higher score is a stronger reviewability posture, not proof of a good decision.
- Honesty about the model’s limits is part of the model.
Questions about the score.
How is the score calculated?
Specific items in six domains are scored 0, 1, or 2 against explicit anchors, aggregated per domain, and combined into a single 0 to 100 Workflow Integrity Score, applied the same way every time.
Why should I trust the score?
Because the domains and anchors are public, the method is repeatable, and we state clearly what the score does not measure. We do not present it as more than it is.
What does the score measure?
Reviewability posture: how well a workflow’s decisions are evidence-bound, approval-traceable, exception-aware, recorded, and reconstructable.
What does the score not measure?
It does not measure whether a decision was business-correct, does not certify compliance, is not legal advice, is not a guarantee, and is not a market benchmark.
What are the six domains?
Reviewability, evidence integrity, approval traceability, exception visibility, decision reconstruction, and operational accountability.
What does a 0, 1, or 2 mean?
0 means absent or not evident, 1 means partial or inconsistent, and 2 means present and consistent.
What does a high score mean?
That the workflow’s decisions appear to have stronger reviewability, evidence linkage, and reconstruction readiness.
What does a low score mean?
That there are significant reviewability gaps that make decisions harder to explain or review later.
What can a score not prove?
It cannot prove a decision was correct, cannot prove compliance, and does not guarantee any outcome.
Is the score a compliance rating?
No. It summarizes reviewability posture. It does not certify compliance or provide regulatory approval.
Is the score legal advice?
No. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for counsel.
Is the score a guarantee?
No. It is a signal of posture, not a guarantee of behavior or outcomes.
Is the score benchmarked against the industry?
No. We do not compare it to fabricated benchmarks or industry averages. Any reference is transparent and defined.
Do you publish the exact weights?
No. The domains and anchors are public, but the exact weighting and the commercial engine are proprietary, and we say so plainly.
Is the score objective?
The anchors reduce subjectivity and support repeatable scoring, but it is a structured assessment, not a claim of absolute objectivity.
Are the example scenarios real?
No. The scoring scenarios are illustrative examples, not real assessments.
How is the Executive Grade related to the score?
It is a single letter that summarizes the same posture for executives alongside the numeric score, as a quick read.
Can the score change over time?
Yes. As a workflow changes, a reassessment can produce a different score. The score reflects what was assessed within a defined scope.
Does a high score mean we are safe?
No. A high score means stronger reviewability posture. It does not guarantee safety or prove any individual decision was right.
What are the score’s limitations?
It is scope-bound, depends on the accuracy of the inputs, summarizes posture rather than guaranteeing future behavior, and is not a substitute for internal audit, legal review, or business judgment.
How do I get a score for my workflow?
Through a Workflow Audit, which produces the score on your real workflow and data, handled as private.
Where can I see a score in context?
On the Sample Report page, where an illustrative score appears within a full demonstration report.
See your own score, transparently.
Now that you know how the score works, a Workflow Audit produces it for your workflow, on your data, handled as private.