These are fictional proposals, not disguised ratings of real tailors. Plan A has a documented, corroborated in-person process. Plan B has attractive styling, cloth and construction evidence but relies on weak remote fitting and correction arrangements.
| Criterion | Weight | Plan A rating | Plan A points | Plan B rating | Plan B points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fitting capability and access | 22 | 4 | 17.6 | 2 | 8.8 |
| Correction accountability | 18 | 4 | 14.4 | 1 | 3.6 |
| Pattern and process | 12 | 4 | 9.6 | 2 | 4.8 |
| Executive style | 10 | 4 | 8.0 | 4 | 8.0 |
| Cloth | 10 | 4 | 8.0 | 4 | 8.0 |
| Construction | 8 | 3 | 4.8 | 4 | 6.4 |
| Delivered cost | 10 | 4 | 8.0 | 3 | 6.0 |
| Schedule | 5 | 4 | 4.0 | 1 | 1.0 |
| Repeat records | 3 | 3 | 1.8 | 2 | 1.2 |
| Communication/privacy | 2 | 3 | 1.2 | 3 | 1.2 |
| Total | 100 | 77.4 | 49.0 |
For this example, assume all Plan A criteria have E2 or E3 support, with E3 on the criteria rated 4. Its documented coverage is 100%, and corroborated coverage is 87%. Assume Plan B has E3 support for style, cloth and construction, E2 for cost and communication, and E1 elsewhere: its documented coverage is 40%, and corroborated coverage is 28%.
Decision: Plan A is eligible for one pilot if its mandatory checks pass. Plan B is not ready for a deposit, even if its garment price is lower. Its priorities are fitting access, correction responsibility and scheduling—not another fabric upgrade.
A real decision brief should add the evidence reference, reviewer, check date and one-sentence rationale beside every rating. Have the assistant and executive resolve disagreements about critical criteria before payment.