# Scoring Model The scoring model helps teams evaluate how well a design review worked. It looks at each part of the conversation and measures two things: - How clearly the step showed up - How much it shaped the direction of the call This helps teams move beyond “that felt like a good call” and see where the conversation actually gained or lost strength. Use the scoring model after a design review or when reviewing a transcript through the SIGNAL Call Rubric. Start with a real design review conversation. This can be: - A call transcript - A meeting recording turned into text - Notes from a review, if no transcript is available A transcript works best because it shows what actually happened in the conversation. It gives the team something real to score instead of relying on memory. * * * ## **How scoring works** Each part of the SIGNAL framework is scored from 1 to 5. [Surface](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/surface-techniques) → [Identify](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/identify-techniques) → [Ground](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/grounding-techniques) → [Navigate](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/navigating-techniques) → [Align](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/align-techniques) → [Lock](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/lock-momentum) Each section is scored independently based on what happened in the conversation. The goal is not to get a perfect score. The goal is to see how the conversation held together and where the team can improve the next review. After scoring, look for: - Where scores are low - Where clarity first dropped - Where the conversation lost strength - What to improve next time You do not need to fix everything at once. Improving one or two weak areas can change how the next review performs. ### **The Section Scales** The scale reflects the extent to which each step influenced the call.

Score	Level	Summary
1	Reactive	The step is mostly absent. The conversation moves forward without it.
2	Emerging	The step shows up briefly but does not influence the direction.
3	Functional	The step is present and working, but not shaping the conversation in a meaningful way.
4	Strong	The step is clear and influences the direction, with minor gaps.
5	Leading	The step is clear, consistent, and actively shapes how the group thinks and decides.

### ** Interpreting the Total total** Each of the six sections is scored out of 5, for a total score out of 30. The total score shows how strong the conversation was from start to finish.

Score	Level	Summary
25-30	Leading	The conversation created strong clarity across the full decision flow. The group moved from problem to action with confidence.
19-24	Advancing	The conversation worked well overall, with a few gaps that softened clarity or momentum.
13-18	Functional	The conversation had useful moments, but several steps were weak or underdeveloped.
6-12	Reactive	The conversation lacked structure. Decisions were unclear, weak, or not fully secured.

Patterns across the six sections matter more than the total score. A call can have a decent total score and still break down in one important area. Look for the step where clarity first dropped. That is usually the best place to improve. ### **Scoring calibration** Use the full scale, but score carefully. - 1 means the step was mostly absent. - 2 means the team attempted the step, but it did not shape the call. - 3 means the step was present and useful. - 4 means the step was strong, with one or two gaps. - 5 means the step clearly shaped how the group thought and decided. Score each section independently. Do not let one strong part of the call lift every score. Do not let one weak part pull everything down. The score should reflect what actually happened in the conversation. ### **Behavioral signals to review** The score should be supported by evidence from the transcript. Look for patterns like: - Talk time: who carried the conversation - Problem ownership: who named the real tension - Decision language: whether people used words like decide, approve, commit, move forward, or next step - Signal use: whether evidence changed the direction - Reframe adoption: whether the group picked up a clearer way to understand the problem - Closing clarity: whether owners, actions, and timing were confirmed These signals help explain why a section scored high or low. * * * ## **Section Scoring Guide** Use the guide below to score each part of the SIGNAL flow. ### [**Surface**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/surface-techniques) **Challenges** A strong score means the real problem is clear, specific, and grounded in consequence. The group understands what is breaking down and why it matters.

Score	Description
5	Clear pain and consequence surfaced
4	Tension identified, consequence partially quantified
3	Friction is visible and discussed, but not pushed far enough to shape the call
2	Surface-level acknowledgment, no depth
1	Feature-level conversation only

### [**Identify**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/identify-techniques) **outcomes** A strong score means the group is aligned on what success looks like. There is a clear sense of what should change and how improvement will be recognized.

Score	Description
5	Clear, measurable outcome agreed
4	Outcomes stated and mostly measurable, agreement implicit
3	Goals stated but vague
2	Outcomes mentioned but not defined
1	Deliverables dominate discussion

### [**Ground**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/grounding-techniques) **in signals** A strong score means the conversation is guided by real signals. Evidence shapes how people think and influences the direction of the discussion.

Score	Description
5	Signals drove the conversation
4	Signals referenced and influenced key decisions
3	Some signal grounding
2	Signals mentioned but not used for decisions
1	Opinion-driven review

### [**Navigate**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/navigating-techniques) **Decisions** A strong score means a clear direction is formed. The group moves from discussion to a recommendation that people understand and support.

Score	Description
5	Clear recommendation and explicit agreement
4	Recommendation given, agreement mostly clear
3	Direction provided but commitment soft
2	Options presented without recommendation
1	Discussion without decision

### [**Align**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/align-techniques) **Ownership** A strong score means responsibility is clear. The group knows who is taking the next step and how the work will move forward.

Score	Description
5	Clear ownership and clean boundaries
4	Most ownership explicit, minor gaps
3	Partial clarity
2	Some ownership discussed, not confirmed
1	Ambiguity persists

### [**Lock**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/lock-momentum) **Momentum** A strong score means the conversation leads directly to action. Next steps are clear, timing is understood, and the team is aligned on what happens next.

Score	Description
5	Impact and next steps locked
4	Next steps defined with owners, timeline soft
3	Next steps soft
2	Vague follow-up mentioned
1	Call ended without commitment

### **What the score should produce** A scored review should give the team more than a number. It should produce: - Total score - Score band - Section scores across Surface → Lock - Short summary of the call pattern - Where clarity first dropped - Strengths to keep using - Weak points to improve - Primary improvement for the next call This helps the team turn the score into action. ### **How to use the results** After the review is scored, look for the first weak point in the flow. That is usually where the next improvement should happen. - If [Surface](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/surface-techniques) is weak, clarify the real problem earlier. - If [Identify](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/identify-techniques) is weak, define success before debating options. - If [Ground](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/grounding-techniques) is weak, bring stronger signals into the review. - If [Navigate](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/navigating-techniques) is weak, make recommendations and tradeoffs more explicit. - If [Align](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/align-techniques) is weak, clarify who owns the next move. - If [Lock](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-review/design-review-techniques/lock-momentum) is weak, close with clear actions, owners, and timing. The scoring model helps teams measure how well a conversation turned into a decision. Over time, this creates more consistent reviews, clearer decisions, and stronger outcomes. * * * ## **Additional Scoring Areas** The score tells the team how the conversation performed. These additional areas explain why it performed that way and what to do next. They turn the rubric from a rating into a clearer improvement plan. ### **Behavioral Metrics** Behavioral metrics help explain why the call scored the way it did. The SIGNAL score shows how well each part of the conversation worked. Behavioral metrics show what was happening underneath the score. These are not separate scores. They are supporting evidence from the transcript. Use them to understand: - Who carried the conversation - Whether the client or team owned the problem - Whether decision language showed up - Whether signals changed the discussion - Whether a clearer frame was adopted - Whether the call ended with confirmed action These patterns help explain why a section was strong or weak. ### **Talk Time** Talk time shows who carried the conversation. It looks at how much of the call was led by the team running the review and how much came from the other participants. Talk time does not need to be perfectly balanced. Some calls require more explanation. But extreme imbalance can show that the conversation was not creating enough shared ownership. Look for: - Who spoke the most - Whether one side carried the call - Whether the group had enough space to respond - Whether important decisions were discussed by the people who need to own them Use this to understand whether the review was collaborative or mostly one-sided. ### **Problem Ownership** Problem ownership shows whether the people in the room acknowledged the real issue. This matters most in Surface. A problem is stronger when the team or client names the tension themselves instead of only agreeing with someone else’s framing. Look for language like: - “We’re struggling with…” - “The issue is…” - “This keeps coming up…” - “We need to fix…” - “That’s where people are getting stuck…” Strong problem ownership means the group sees the problem clearly and feels some responsibility for solving it. Weak problem ownership means the problem may still feel external, vague, or easy to avoid. ### **Decision Language** Decision language shows whether the conversation moved toward commitment. This matters most in Navigate and Lock. A review may sound aligned, but if no one uses decision language, the direction may still be soft. Look for words and phrases like: - “Let’s move forward” - “We should choose…” - “I’m comfortable with…” - “Let’s commit to…” - “That’s the direction” - “Next step is…” Strong decision language means the group is moving from discussion into action. Weak decision language means the call may still be exploratory, even if people sound positive. ### **Reframe Adoption** Reframe adoption shows whether the group picked up a clearer way of understanding the problem. This matters most in Ground and Navigate. Sometimes the strongest moment in a call is when someone reframes the issue and the group starts using that new frame. Look for: - a clearer way of describing the problem - a shift from opinion to signal - a shift from feature talk to outcome talk - participants repeating or building on the new frame - the conversation changing direction after the reframe Strong reframe adoption means the group did more than hear the idea. They used it. Weak reframe adoption means the better frame was introduced, but did not shape the conversation. ### **Closing Clarity** Closing clarity shows whether the call ended with enough structure to keep the work moving. This matters most in Align and Lock. A call can score well early and still lose momentum if the ending is vague. Look for: - named owners - specific actions - timing or checkpoints - confirmed agreement - a clear next review point - a shared understanding of what happens next Strong closing clarity means the decision can continue after the call. Weak closing clarity means the same conversation may need to happen again. ### **Strengths** Strengths show what the team should keep doing. After scoring the call, identify the parts of the conversation that helped create clarity. These are behaviors worth repeating. Strengths may include: - the real problem was surfaced clearly - outcomes were made specific - signals shaped the conversation - the team made a clear recommendation - ownership was confirmed - next steps were locked The goal is not only to fix weak points. The team should also understand what worked so those behaviors become repeatable. ### **Improvement Areas** Improvement areas show where the conversation needs more support. These should come directly from the scores and transcript evidence. Focus on the moments that weakened clarity, slowed the decision, or made action less certain. Improvement areas may include: - the problem stayed too general - success was not defined - signals were mentioned but not used - options were discussed without a recommendation - ownership stayed vague - next steps were too soft Keep this section focused. A call may have many weak spots, but the team should only focus on the areas that would most improve the next review. ### **Primary Improvement** The primary improvement is the one change that would most improve the next call. This should come from the first major point where clarity dropped in the SIGNAL flow. The scoring model already recommends looking for the first weak point because that is usually the best place to improve. **Use this format:** Primary improvement: \[specific behavior to change\] Why it matters: \[how this weakened the call\] Next time: \[what to do differently\] Example: Primary improvement: Make a clear recommendation. Why it matters: The group had enough signal to choose a direction, but the conversation stayed open. Next time: State the recommended direction, explain the tradeoff, and ask for agreement before moving on.