Lead Scoring Rubric

Link

3

Link Name

Qualification

Role

rubric

Loop Step

Repair

Purpose

Translate qualification information into a consistent priority and next-action classification, so every responder reaches the same decision from the same evidence and no high-intent opportunity is missed or falsely discarded.

Governing Principle

Classification must follow evidence, not a single variable. A lead is never scored on budget, source, urgency, geography, or estimated deal value alone. Where a numeric score is used, it must map transparently to a customer-facing classification — no opaque black-box number.

Classifications

Disqualified Vs Insufficient

Rule

A lead must NEVER be marked DISQUALIFIED because the business failed to gather enough information. Absence of evidence is INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION and requires a recovery attempt first. Disqualification requires positive evidence of non-fit.

Why

Conflating the two silently discards good opportunities and hides a qualification-process leak behind a 'not a fit' label.

Scoring Model

Note

Scoring is multi-factor and configurable. No single factor can classify a lead by itself.

Weighting Guidance

Businesses set weights deliberately for their model. A common default emphasizes Fit and Intent over Value so a high-value poor-fit lead never outranks a strong-fit ready buyer. Weights must be written down and applied consistently. There is no universal correct weighting.

Score To Classification Mapping

If a numeric score is used, publish the exact bands that map to each classification (e.g. which score ranges = HIGH INTENT vs QUALIFIED vs NURTURE) so the number is always explainable. A score with no visible mapping is not allowed.

Guardrail

Fit must gate the score: a confirmed non-fit is DISQUALIFIED regardless of value or urgency, and a lead missing the evidence to judge fit is INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION regardless of an apparently high partial score.

Threshold Policy

Approved Thresholds Available

false

Rule

Do not fabricate universal scoring thresholds or 'industry-standard' cutoffs. Thresholds and weights are configurable and set by the operator from the RLR-16 baseline and the KPI Dictionary (RLR-35).

What To Measure

Whether the same evidence yields the same classification across responders, and whether classifications are backed by the required evidence rather than a single factor.

How To Interpret

Divergent classifications on similar evidence means the rubric is not being applied consistently; a spike in DISQUALIFIED that is really missing-information means the disqualified/insufficient rule is being violated.

Action That Follows

Attach the required classification + evidence to every qualified record, feed it to routing (RLR-20) and disposition (RLR-21), and correct any misuse of DISQUALIFIED vs INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.

Owner

Sales/intake manager owns the rubric, the weights, and the score-to-classification mapping.

How To Implement

Adopt the six classifications, set factor weights deliberately, publish the score bands if numeric scoring is used, wire classification into the CRM, and train responders on the disqualified-vs-insufficient distinction with examples.

How To Test

Give several responders the same 5-10 anonymized records and confirm they reach the same classification; audit a sample of DISQUALIFIED records to confirm each cites evidence of non-fit.

When To Remeasure

Re-audit with RLR-16 at 14 and 30 days; review weights/mapping quarterly in RLR-38.

How To Know It Improved

Classification agreement between responders rises, unknown-mislabeled-as-disqualified falls, high-intent recognition rises, and qualification-to-booking improves — measured on records, not asserted.

Consolidation Note

Reuses and improves ShiFt's prior lead-scoring guidance (including the public lead-scoring-vs-AI-qualification explainer); that explainer remains public, and this is the canonical operational rubric it points to.

Delivery Status

content_ready_delivery_pending