The method
We mark judgement against a published standard.
No lectures first. We put you in front of a real decision, make you commit, and have an operator mark the call against a rubric you can read. Then we hand you the evidence.
The loop
Decide. Mark. Show.
A real decision
A founder’s-day situation with no answer key and real trade-offs.
A committed call
You choose, in writing, and own the consequence.
Marked to a standard
An operator scores it against the published rubric, by hand.
Evidence you keep
A plain-language report and a portfolio entry, yours to show.
The standard, in the open
The rubric isn’t described. It’s published.
Every call is marked on levels like these, and the same levels appear on your portfolio, so anyone reading it can see exactly what the score means.
| Level | Judgement under pressure | What it reads as |
|---|---|---|
| Sharp | Names the real trade-off, chooses deliberately, and states what they’re willing to lose. | Ready for the room. |
| Solid | Makes a defensible call and sees most of the second-order effects. | Trustworthy on the day. |
| Developing | Reasonable instinct, but misses a cost or a stakeholder the decision turns on. | Coachable, not yet reliable. |
| Early | Reacts to the surface of the problem; the trade-off underneath goes unseen. | Raw, needs the reps. |
Illustrative levels shown here; the live rubric set (65 of them) ships from How We Teach Judgement and reads verbatim on every portfolio page.
Free · marked against the standard
Take the assessment.
2.1% get a seat. Everyone gets their score. Either way you leave knowing something true about how you think.