Program screening rubric

Read this when screening programs in Step 3. Score every program on the same criteria, record the evidence for each, and keep credibility value and citation value apart. A program can be strong on one and weak on the other. Notoriety is estimated separately in budget-and-notoriety-ranking.md and never replaces this screen.

Criteria

Criterion	What to look for	Strong signal	Weak signal
Buyer relevance	Do the company's buyers know, read or trust the program?	Buyers, analysts or customers mention it; peers display it	Only entrants and vendors talk about it
Judging transparency	Published criteria, named judges, a described process	Criteria and judges are listed, and judging is independent of sponsorship	No criteria, anonymous judges, or "winners selected by the organizer"
Entry mechanics	Cost, effort, word limits, evidence demanded	Clear cost and a reasonable effort for the value	Fees that rise with sponsorship tiers, or surprise charges after winning
Eligibility fit	Company size, region, product category, stage, cycle dates	The company clearly qualifies in a named category	A stretch fit, or categories that do not match any use case
Winner publication	Are winners listed on a public, linkable page?	A permanent winners page with company names	Winners announced only to entrants or only in a paid supplement
Past winners	Who won in earlier cycles?	Peers and respected companies appear, and not every entrant wins	Nearly every entrant wins, or winners are mostly sponsors
Citation value	Do search results and AI answers cite this program or its winners page?	The program or its winners page appears in sources for the category's buyer questions	Never appears
Longevity	Has it run for several cycles?	Consistent cycles and a stable organizer	New, unproven, or the organizer changes name each cycle

Checking citation value

1. Write five to ten questions a buyer in each use case would ask, such as "best [category] for [situation]."
2. Ask them in search and in the AI assistants buyers use.
3. Note every source cited or listed, and whether any is an awards page, a best-of list or a recognition report.
4. Prefer programs, or the publications that run them, that appear.

Do not assume a program is cited because it is famous. Record the date of the check, since cited sources change.

Red flags

• the organizer sells entry, tickets, trophies and advertising together, and winners are those who buy them;
• there are dozens of categories with very few entrants;
• the entry form asks for payment before eligibility is confirmed;
• the program promises coverage or a winners feature in exchange for a purchase;
• no public record of previous winners.

Flag these clearly. A pay-to-play program can still be worth entering for a specific buyer audience, but the shortlist must say so and let a human decide.

Tiers

• Enter: strong on buyer relevance and eligibility, credible judging, and a public winners page.
• Maybe: fits well but is weak on one criterion, with the weakness stated.
• Skip: weak on relevance, transparency or fit, or shows red flags with no offsetting value.

Give one line of reasoning for every tier decision.

Evidence labels

Mark each criterion confirmed (seen on the program's own pages or in independent sources), likely (strong circumstantial signal) or unverified (no evidence either way). Never present a criterion as met without evidence.