Each criterion is scored 1 to 5 using the descriptors. The four criterion scores are added to give a total out of 20. Scores are a structure for discussion, not a formula that replaces judgement; a table may fund a lower-scoring case if it can say why.
| Criterion | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Rigour of design, appropriateness of methods, capacity of the team to execute to a standard others will trust | Design cannot answer the question; no methodological support; team has no relevant track record | Design has known weaknesses that are not addressed; limited prior work | Sound design for the question; team has published relevant work; methodological support identified | Strong design with risks acknowledged and mitigated; team has a recognised track record; ethics and data plans in place | Design is at the standard of the best work in the field; independent review already obtained; team has led comparable studies |
| Relevance to national priorities Fit with a stated national, state, sector or community problem | No connection to any stated priority; problem chosen for convenience | Priority is named but the link is nominal | Addresses a stated priority (mission, programme, SDG, state plan) with a plausible contribution | Addresses a stated priority and a specific gap that a programme or partner has identified | Addresses a priority at the request of, or in partnership with, the body responsible for it |
| Potential impact Credibility of the route from output to outcome to impact; reach and significance | No user or partner; outputs are the end of the story | A possible user is mentioned but not engaged | A user is identified and has expressed interest; outcome is described | A partner is committed in writing; outcome and impact are described with a realistic timeline | A partner is co-designing the work and has a decision that depends on the result; reach beyond the immediate partner is plausible |
| Feasibility Whether this team, in this institution, with this budget and time, can deliver | Budget, time or capacity clearly insufficient; critical dependencies unsecured | Major dependencies unsecured (ethics, access, key facility) | Deliverable with identified risks; main dependencies secured | Deliverable with contingency; dependencies secured; budget realistic | Deliverable with margin; team has delivered projects of this size before |
| Total (out of 20) | Band | Recommended decision |
|---|---|---|
| 17 to 20 | Consequential | Fund at full value; consider as a flagship for an external proposal |
| 13 to 16 | Promising | Fund with conditions that address the lowest-scoring criterion |
| 9 to 12 | Developmental | Return for revision with mentoring; consider a smaller pilot grant |
| 4 to 8 | Not ready | Decline; redirect the team to capacity-building support |
Record the table's consensus score on each criterion and the total for each case.
| Criterion | Case 1 · Salivary biomarkers | Case 2 · Retinal images | Case 3 · Insurance utilisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | |||
| Relevance to national priorities | |||
| Potential impact | |||
| Feasibility | |||
| Total (out of 20) | |||
| Band | |||
| Ranking | |||
| Position in Pasteur's Quadrant Bohr · Pasteur · Edison · lower-left |
| The one case the table would fund at full value | |
|---|---|
| Two sentences of justification that refer to the rubric | |
| If this is not the highest-scoring case, why | |
| What could reduce the chosen case's main risk within the grant |
Who must approve it
Who would object, and the answer to them
What will be observably different in six months