Scoring Methodology
"The 3D lens makes impact measurable: Sound × Space × Time"
The 6D Impact scoring system quantifies problem severity using three dimensions borrowed from the Cormorant Foraging Framework: Sound (urgency), Space (scope), and Time (trajectory).
The 3D Lens
Every problem is scored across three independent factors:
| Lens | What It Measures | Cormorant Integration | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sound (ChirpIQX) | Urgency — How immediate is the signal? | Aggressive tone, trigger keywords, immediate hooks | 1-10 |
| Space (PerchIQX) | Scope — How widespread is the impact? | Positioning, strategic framing, affected population | 1-10 |
| Time (WakeIQX) | Trajectory — Is it improving or degrading? | Past patterns, memory, trend direction | 1-10 |
Formula
Dimension Score = (Sound × Space × Time) ÷ 10Why divide by 10? To normalize the score to a more interpretable range (1-100 instead of 1-1000).
Sound (ChirpIQX): Urgency
Question: How immediate is the problem?
| Score | Urgency Level | Characteristics | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-3 | Future Risk | No immediate impact, theoretical concern | "For future planning...", "Best practice suggests..." |
| 4-6 | Current Issue | Active but not critical, manageable | "This is concerning", "We need to address" |
| 7-10 | Active Crisis | Immediate action required, severe consequences | "System down", "Legal threat", "Customer canceling" |
Trigger Keyword Mapping
High Urgency (Sound = 8-10):
Customer: "canceling", "lawsuit", "unacceptable"
Employee: "I'm done", "burned out", "hostile"
Revenue: "penalty clause", "termination", "write-off"
Regulatory: "violation", "investigation", "subpoena"
Quality: "recall", "safety incident", "injury"
Operational: "system down", "outage", "data loss"Medium Urgency (Sound = 4-7):
Customer: "disappointed", "reconsidering", "frustrated"
Employee: "overwhelmed", "understaffed", "thankless"
Revenue: "renegotiate", "discount", "delayed payment"
Regulatory: "audit finding", "non-compliance", "remediation required"
Quality: "defect", "rework", "failed inspection"
Operational: "workaround", "bottleneck", "blocked by"Low Urgency (Sound = 1-3):
Customer: "just wondering", "any updates", "is this normal"
Employee: "just curious", "hypothetically", "work from home policy"
Revenue: "next fiscal year", "budget planning", "exploring options"
Regulatory: "new regulation", "best practice", "voluntary disclosure"
Quality: "workaround", "minor issue", "edge case"
Operational: "inefficient", "nice to have", "process improvement"Space (PerchIQX): Scope
Question: How widespread is the impact?
| Score | Scope Level | Affected Population | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-3 | Isolated | One person, one customer, one process | Single user bug, individual complaint |
| 4-6 | Department/Segment | One team, customer segment, product line | All enterprise customers, entire support team |
| 7-10 | Enterprise-Wide | Cross-functional, market-wide, systemic | All customers, entire company, industry impact |
Measurement Guide
Customer:
- 1-3: One customer
- 4-6: Customer segment (e.g., all mid-market)
- 7-10: Market-wide (competitors know, public)
Employee:
- 1-3: One person
- 4-6: One team or department
- 7-10: Cross-functional, company-wide
Revenue:
- 1-3: One deal
- 4-6: Product line or region
- 7-10: Company-wide revenue impact
Regulatory:
- 1-3: One process or location
- 4-6: One department or business unit
- 7-10: Enterprise-wide compliance failure
Quality:
- 1-3: One unit or batch
- 4-6: One product or release
- 7-10: All production, systemic design flaw
Operational:
- 1-3: One process or system
- 4-6: One department's workflows
- 7-10: Cross-functional, business-critical systems
Time (WakeIQX): Trajectory
Question: Is it getting better or worse?
| Score | Trajectory | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-3 | One-Time | First occurrence, isolated incident | New issue, no history |
| 4-6 | Recurring | Pattern emerging, repeated occurrences | Happens weekly, multiple reports |
| 7-10 | Accelerating | Trend worsening, spreading, compounding | Exponential growth, viral spread |
Trend Analysis
Improving Trajectory (Lower Scores):
- Issue occurred once, root cause understood
- Problem contained, not spreading
- Fix in progress, resolution visible
Neutral Trajectory (Middle Scores):
- Recurring at steady rate
- Pattern established but stable
- No acceleration or deceleration
Degrading Trajectory (Higher Scores):
- Frequency increasing
- Severity escalating
- Spreading to new areas/customers
Dimension Score Calculation
Step 1: Score Each Factor (1-10)
Example: Billing Error Discovery
Sound (Urgency):
- System workarounds happening NOW
- Multiple customer complaints
- Score: 8 (active crisis)
Space (Scope):
- 12 customers affected
- Multiple teams involved (billing, support, ops)
- Score: 7 (segment-wide)
Time (Trajectory):
- Started 3 weeks ago
- Frequency increasing
- More customers discovering it each week
- Score: 7 (accelerating)Step 2: Calculate Dimension Score
Operational Dimension Score = (Sound × Space × Time) ÷ 10
= (8 × 7 × 7) ÷ 10
= 392 ÷ 10
= 39.2Step 3: Interpret the Score
| Score Range | Severity | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| 1-10 | Low | Monitor, track over time |
| 11-25 | Medium | Plan remediation within 2 weeks |
| 26-50 | High | Immediate action, escalate to leadership |
| 51-100 | Critical | All-hands, executive involvement, crisis mode |
Example Interpretation:
- Score 39.2 = High severity
- Requires immediate action
- Expect significant cascade effects
- Leadership visibility essential
From Dimension Scores to a Verdict: DRIFT, FETCH, and THRESHOLD
Dimension scores tell you how severe each affected dimension is. They don't by themselves tell you what to do. That's a separate, second calculation — FETCH — and it needs two more inputs beyond the dimension scores: DRIFT and CONFIDENCE.
DRIFT: the gap between diagnosis and proof
DRIFT measures the distance between a claim's methodology (how sound is the reasoning?) and its performance (how proven is the outcome, in practice, so far?):
DRIFT = |METHODOLOGY − PERFORMANCE|Both METHODOLOGY and PERFORMANCE are scored 0–100. A low DRIFT means the reasoning and the proof are close together — either both strong (a validated, working thesis) or both weak (an unfounded guess, honestly scored as such). A high DRIFT means a real gap between what's diagnosed and what's demonstrated — often the most interesting cases, because they're making a real bet, not just describing what already happened.
CHIRP: the single-number severity signal
CHIRP rolls the affected dimensions up into one number — commonly the average of the dimension scores you calculated above, though for the origin dimension specifically it may be scored directly via the 3D Lens formula.
FETCH: the decision
FETCH = CHIRP × DRIFT × CONFIDENCECONFIDENCE (0–1) reflects how well-sourced the whole analysis is — not how big the opportunity is, how good the evidence is. FETCH is then compared against a THRESHOLD (commonly 1,000) to reach a verdict: clear the threshold and the case reads EXECUTE; fall short and it reads MONITOR, WATCH, or lower, depending on the margin.
Worked Example: UC-246, "The Actual Intelligence Bet" (Starbucks)
This is a real, published case — every number below is exactly what that case computed, not an illustration.
Origin dimension: D3 — Employee, scored 88/100 (the $500M+ "coffeehouse coach" labor investment).
METHODOLOGY 85 — the diagnosis is well-evidenced: CEO Brian Niccol's own stated reasoning ("Starbucks ran like a manufacturing facility") plus a documented, verifiable $500M+ commitment. PERFORMANCE 45 — the outcome is still resolving: comparable sales are recovering (+7.1% North America), but the investment is compressing near-term margins and the ROI hasn't fully proven out yet.
DRIFT = |85 − 45| = 40A real, meaningful gap — the reasoning is well ahead of the proof, which is exactly right for a bet that's still playing out.
CHIRP 76.5 (the case's overall severity signal, drawing on all six affected dimensions). CONFIDENCE 0.86 — high, because both halves of the story (the labor investment and the AI build happening alongside it) are independently, primary-sourced.
FETCH = 76.5 × 40 × 0.86 = 2,632Against a THRESHOLD of 1,000, 2,632 clears it comfortably — the case reads EXECUTE, High Priority. That's not a subjective call layered on top of the dimension scores; it's what the same formula the case's own page displays actually computes, cited to eight sources, independently checkable.
Quick Reference Scoring Guide
Rapid Assessment (30 seconds)
- Is it urgent? (High urgency = +3 to Sound)
- Is it widespread? (More than one team/customer = +3 to Space)
- Is it getting worse? (Trend accelerating = +3 to Time)
Quick Score:
- All "No": Score ~10-15 (Low priority)
- One "Yes": Score ~20-30 (Medium priority)
- Two "Yes": Score ~40-60 (High priority)
- Three "Yes": Score ~70-100 (Critical priority)
Detailed Assessment (5 minutes)
Use the full 3D lens with trigger keyword analysis:
- Sound: Check for trigger keywords in communications
- Space: Count affected entities (customers, employees, systems)
- Time: Review historical data for trend direction
Calculate the dimension score and map cascades.
Common Scoring Mistakes
Mistake 1: Confusing Urgency with Importance
❌ Wrong: "This is strategically important" → Sound = 9 ✅ Right: "Is it happening NOW?" → If no, Sound = 1-3
Mistake 2: Over-Scoping
❌ Wrong: "Could eventually affect everyone" → Space = 10 ✅ Right: "Who is affected TODAY?" → Actual count
Mistake 3: Wishful Thinking on Trajectory
❌ Wrong: "We're working on it, so it's improving" → Time = 2 ✅ Right: "Is the PROBLEM improving or degrading?" → Check data
Mistake 4: Ignoring Silent Signals
❌ Wrong: "No complaints this week" → All scores low ✅ Right: Check leading indicators (usage drops, engagement declines)
Integration with Cascade Analysis
Dimension scores predict cascade probability:
Rule of Thumb:
- Score > 30: Expect cascades to 3-4 other dimensions
- Score 15-30: Expect cascades to 1-2 other dimensions
- Score < 15: May remain isolated, monitor
Next Steps
Remember: High scores demand immediate attention. The 3D lens prevents surprises. 🪶