A transparent 100-point rubric
A score should explain a routing decision, not hide it. This reusable model separates fit, need, readiness, urgency, and data confidence. Teams can change weights, but every rule should be visible and tied to a field that has a known origin.
| Dimension | Weight | Example rule |
|---|---|---|
| Account fit | 25 | Target industry 10, size 10, geography 5 |
| Role fit | 15 | Decision-maker 15, influencer 10, other 3 |
| Declared need | 25 | High-cost problem 15, relevant use case 10 |
| Readiness | 15 | Active evaluation 10, defined process 5 |
| Urgency | 10 | Within 30 days 10, quarter 6, later 2 |
| Data confidence | 10 | Verified identity 4, complete answers 3, explicit source and consent 3 |
Worked example: 82 points
A marketing operations lead at a target-size SaaS company scores 20 for account fit and 15 for role. The person declares a costly manual qualification problem for 22 points, is comparing tools now for 12, needs a solution this quarter for 6, and supplies a complete verified record for 7. Total: 82.
The record enters the high-fit segment, receives the relevant recommendation, starts a personalized sequence, and is offered a meeting. The score and component values remain visible to the recipient.
- Cap each dimension so one answer cannot dominate.
- Use first-party answers for need and urgency.
- Apply negative points only for explicit disqualifiers.
- Store component scores, not only the total.
- Review thresholds against accepted and progressed leads.