| Criterion | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|
| Groundedness | Claims cite no insight cards or data | Few claims are tied to cards; most are assertion | About half the claims cite cards or indicators | Most claims cite specific cards or indicator values | Every substantive claim cites a card number or indicator value |
| Specificity | Only vague generalities | Mostly general, a few concrete items | Some concrete actors, numbers or dates | Mostly concrete actors, mechanisms and magnitudes | Concrete actors, mechanisms, magnitudes and dates throughout |
| Falsifiability | Nothing could be checked later | One loosely checkable statement | A few checkable statements without thresholds | Several checkable predictions with dates or thresholds | Clear indicators, thresholds and dates that would confirm or refute the forecast |
| Consistency | Contradicts itself or the data | Some internal tensions left unexplained | Mostly consistent | Consistent, with tensions explained | Fully consistent and explains how this horizon follows from the shorter ones |
| Uncertainty | States the future as certain | Rare hedges, no probabilities | Some probabilities or ranges | Probabilities or ranges for the main claims and alternatives | Explicit probabilities summing sensibly, ranges, and what would change them |
| Novelty | Only restates common headlines | Mostly common views | Some non-obvious connections | Several non-obvious cross-domain connections | Distinctive, data-driven insight not found in typical commentary |
| Readability | Hard to follow | Dense or disorganised | Readable with effort | Clear and well organised | Very clear, plain language, easy to follow |
| Balance | One-sided | Mostly one-sided | Mentions both opportunities and risks briefly | Weighs opportunities and risks | Weighs opportunities, risks and who gains or loses, fairly |