Decision software selection criteria: a scoring sheet
The essentials in 30 seconds
- A scoring sheet for decision software selection criteria has 6 weighted rows that sum to 100.
- In the illustrative example, Tool A scores 80 and Tool B scores 65.
- Gates such as an NDA before any exchange filter tools before scoring starts.
- EQOS Asia documents a deterministic core, 9 structural dimensions and a price grid from US$358 (EQOS Asia pricing page, as of October 2026).
- A pilot on one decision settles scores that fall within 5 points.
A scoring sheet turns decision software selection criteria into a number you can defend. This page builds the sheet in 6 rows, with gates, weights, evidence and a worked comparison of 2 illustrative tools, as of October 2026. It extends the ten questions of the decision engine checklist, and each question feeds a row of the sheet.
On this page
Compare the EQOS Asia offers and request a 30-minute pre-diagnostic.
What does a decision software selection criteria sheet contain?
The sheet has one row per criterion and five columns: the criterion, its weight, the evidence, the score from 0 to 5 and the weighted points. Six rows are enough for most purchases: reproducibility, inputs, output, protection, price and delivery, and first step. Each row maps to questions from the checklist, so the sheet and the checklist stay in step.
Keep the sheet to one page and share it with every evaluator before the first demo. A shared layout lets two people score the same tool and compare columns, which shows quickly where a criterion is unclear. Add a header with the decision the software must support, the date, and the name of the person who owns the final call.
Which must-have gates come before decision software selection criteria?
A gate is a yes or a no that decides whether a tool enters the scoring at all. Choose 2 or 3 gates that your organisation treats as essential, such as an NDA signed before any document is shared, hosting in an agreed country, and a verdict that a reviewer can replay. A tool that fails a gate leaves the sheet, and the team keeps its scoring time for the tools that remain.
Gates keep the weighted rows honest. A high price score cannot hide a weak protection answer when protection is a gate. At EQOS Asia, a systematic NDA is signed before any exchange and sensitive data is hosted in Singapore (EQOS Asia pricing page, as of October 2026), which shows what a published answer to those gates looks like.
How do you weight decision software selection criteria on the sheet?
Weights sum to 100 and reflect the decision you face, not the tool you like. Give the most points to the rows that would end the project if they failed. In the example, reproducibility carries 25, output 20, protection 20, inputs 15, price and delivery 10, and first step 10. Each evaluator proposes weights alone, and the group averages them.
Fix the weights before the first demo and record the date. A weight that moves after a demo tends to follow the preferred tool. If a stakeholder wants to change a weight, run the sheet twice, with the old and the new set, and note whether the ranking changes. A stable ranking closes the debate, and an unstable one tells you which row to discuss.
What evidence should support each score on a decision software sheet?
Every score needs a source in the evidence column: a document, a dated page, a sample output or a test you ran. Scores based on impressions stay at 2 until evidence arrives. This habit makes the sheet auditable, because a colleague can open the cited item and check the number in a minute.
Published pages make good evidence because they carry dates. The EQOS Asia method page describes the 3 pillars and the 9 structural dimensions, the pricing page lists 8 tiers with delivery times, and the privacy page lists TLS 1.3 in transit and AES-256 at rest (EQOS Asia method, pricing and privacy pages, as of October 2026). Ask each vendor for the same kinds of documents.
How does a completed scoring sheet compare two decision tools?
Take two tools, A and B, with illustrative ratings from 0 to 5. Tool A scores 5 on reproducibility, 3 on inputs, 4 on output, 4 on protection, 3 on price and delivery, and 4 on first step. Tool B scores 2, 5, 3, 3, 5 and 3. Multiply each rating by its weight, add the results and divide by 5 to return to a scale of 100.
Tool A earns 125 + 45 + 80 + 80 + 30 + 40 = 400, which gives 80 points. Tool B earns 50 + 75 + 60 + 60 + 50 + 30 = 325, which gives 65. The gap of 15 points comes mostly from reproducibility, where Tool A leads by 3 rating points at the heaviest weight. The sheet shows where a tool wins, and not only that it wins.
What do you do when two decision tools score within 5 points?
A gap under 5 points sits inside the noise of human scoring. Use the sheet to choose which two tools proceed to a test. Ask both vendors for a sample output on the same small case, and score the output row again with the real document in hand. For EQOS Asia, the Λ simulator previews an output before any order.
Then test on one live decision. A 30-day pilot with a score, a recommendation, a next action and a record of effort gives each tool the same exam. Rerun the sheet after the pilot with updated evidence, and let the second result settle the ranking. Record the final sheet with the decision, so that the next purchase starts from it.
How do EQOS Asia documents fill the rows of a decision software sheet?
The method page supports the reproducibility and inputs rows: the Codex Universalis core is deterministic, structured interviews last 2 hours at the Standard level, and documents are collected and vectorized (EQOS Asia method page, as of October 2026). The output row draws on the φ(S) score between 0 and 1, the 3 priority risks, and the STOP zone below 0.618.
The pricing page supports the price and first-step rows: a Reading at US$358, a Decision at US$910 and a Study at US$1,369, with delivery from 24-48 hours to 5-7 days (EQOS Asia pricing page, as of October 2026). The free 30-minute pre-diagnostic by video in Singapore time (SGT, UTC+8) serves as the first step on the sheet.
Frequently asked questions
How many rows should a decision software scoring sheet have?
Six rows cover most purchases: reproducibility, inputs, output, protection, price and delivery, and first step. Fewer rows leave out something that matters, and more spread the weights so thinly that each row barely moves the total. Add a row only when a real constraint appears, and give it evidence.
Who should score the decision software criteria?
Two or three evaluators score alone first, then compare columns. Include the person who owns the final call, someone who will use the tool, and someone who reviews data protection. Scoring alone first keeps the group from following the loudest voice, and the comparison shows which rows need a clearer definition.
What is a good scale for decision software selection criteria?
A scale from 0 to 5 works well because each step can be defined in a sentence: 0 for a missing answer, 3 for a documented answer, and 5 for a documented answer that you verified yourself. Multiply by the weight and divide by 5 to return a total out of 100.
Where does the EQOS Asia pre-diagnostic fit on the scoring sheet?
It fills the first-step row. The 30-minute video session in Singapore time (SGT, UTC+8) applies the equation to a real case, and you are free to stop afterwards (EQOS Asia contact page, as of October 2026). Use its output as the sample for the output row of your sheet.
Test your knowledge
1. How many weighted rows does the sheet in this page have?
- 4
- 6
- 10
Show the answer
6.
2. What does Tool A score in the example?
- 80
- 65
- 15
Show the answer
80.
3. What do the weights of the sheet sum to?
- 10
- 50
- 100
Show the answer
100.
4. A gap under how many points calls for a test on a live decision?
- 15
- 5
- 25
Show the answer
5.
5. Below which φ(S) value does the STOP zone start?
- 0.5
- 1.0
- 0.618
Show the answer
0.618.
About the author
Stéphane Jambu
President, EQOS Forecast Asia
Stéphane Jambu leads EQOS Forecast Asia and works as a consultant in e-commerce, search visibility, and AI. LinkedIn profile
Sources: EQOS Asia method page (eqos-asia.com/method.html), pricing page (eqos-asia.com/pricing.html), privacy page (eqos-asia.com/privacy.html), contact page (eqos-asia.com/contact.html) and simulator page (eqos-asia.com/simulator.html), consulted on 22 October 2026. Page updated on 22 October 2026.