Skip to content

Execution Readiness Scoring

Author: PlanExe Team
Date: 2026-02-11
Status: Proposal
Audience: Program Managers, VCs

Overview

The Execution Readiness Scoring system provides a quantitative "Credit Score" for a plan's executability. It prevents the common failure mode where a plan looks good on paper but lacks the critical prerequisites (resources, permits, contracts) to actually start.

It acts as a "Gatekeeper" service: a plan cannot move to the "Execution Phase" until its readiness score exceeds a threshold (e.g., 80/100).

Core Problem

Plans are often approved based on optimism rather than evidence. Teams commit to dates without having the underlying resources or regulatory approvals secured, leading to immediate delays.

System Architecture

1. Scoring Engine

The core service. It aggregates data from multiple "Validator Agents":

  • Evidence Validator: Checks if all critical claims are backed by Level 3 evidence.
  • Resource Validator: Cross-checks "Roles Needed" vs "Staff Available".
  • Dependency Validator: Ensures upstream constraints (e.g., "Seed funding secured") are met.
  • Risk Validator: Verifies that all "Critical" risks have mitigation plans.

2. The Scorecard (0-100)

A weighted sum of the validator outputs.

$$Score = (0.3 \times Evidence) + (0.3 \times Capacity) + (0.2 \times Risk) + (0.1 \times Dependencies) + (0.1 \times Financials)$$

3. Gap Analysis

The system doesn't just say "No". It generates a GapReport listing exactly what is missing (e.g., "Missing permit from EPA").

Scoring Dimensions (The 100 Points)

Dimension Weight Criteria
Evidence Coverage 30 pts % of Level 3 verified claims. (100% = 30 pts)
Resource Capacity 30 pts (Available / Required) FTEs. (1.0 = 30 pts)
Risk Mitigation 20 pts % of High/Critical risks with active mitigation plans.
Dependency Maturity 10 pts % of long-lead items (e.g., chips) ordered/secured.
Financial Viability 10 pts Cashway runway > 12 months. (True = 10 pts)

Output Schema (JSON)

The API response for a readiness check:

{
  "plan_id": "plan_123",
  "overall_score": 67, 
  "status": "conditional", # "ready" (>80), "conditional" (60-79), "not_ready" (<60)
  "breakdown": {
    "evidence": 22, # out of 30
    "capacity": 15, # out of 30 (Major Gap)
    "risk": 18,     # out of 20
    "deps": 8,      # out of 10
    "finance": 4    # out of 10
  },
  "gaps": [
    {
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "capacity",
      "description": "Missing Lead Engineer (Role ID: role_55)",
      "action": "Open requisition or contract agency"
    },
    {
      "severity": "warning",
      "category": "evidence",
      "description": "Market sizing is based on 2023 report (stale)",
      "action": "Update source to 2025 data"
    }
  ]
}

User Interface

"The Launch Button"

A prominent button on the plan dashboard. - Disabled (Gray): Score < 60. Tooltip lists major blockers. - Warning (Yellow): Score 60-79. Pop-up warns: "Are you sure? Financials are weak." - Enabled (Green): Score > 80. "All systems go."

Integration Logic

The Readiness Score is connected to other PlanExe modules: - Evidence Ledger: Feeds the "Evidence Coverage" score. - Audit Pack: The final score is printed on the cover page of the Investor Pack. - Elo Ranking: Uses readiness as a "Feasibility" signal for ranking plans.

Future Enhancements

  1. AI Gap Filling: "You are missing a GDPR policy. Here is a draft based on similar plans."
  2. Sector Benchmarks: Compare readiness against industry averages (e.g., "Your hiring plan is 20% slower than peer startups").

Detailed Implementation Plan

Phase A — Score Contract and Baseline Rules (1–2 weeks)

  1. Define immutable score schema:
  2. overall score
  3. dimension scores
  4. evidence references

  5. gating decision

  6. Lock scoring weights in a versioned config file.

  7. Add deterministic fallback behavior when validator data is missing.

Phase B — Validator Adapters (2–3 weeks)

  1. Build adapters for each readiness dimension:
  2. evidence coverage
  3. resource capacity
  4. risk mitigation completeness
  5. dependency maturity

  6. financial viability

  7. Normalize all outputs into a common scoring input envelope.

  8. Add confidence score per validator result.

Phase C — Gap Report and Action Engine (2 weeks)

  1. Generate machine-readable blockers/warnings:
  2. severity
  3. owner
  4. due date

  5. recommended remediation actions

  6. Add remediation templates by gap type.

  7. Attach each gap to source artifacts for auditability.

Phase D — Gating and Workflow Integration (2 weeks)

  1. Add readiness gates in pipeline state transitions:
  2. not_ready blocks launch
  3. conditional requires explicit waiver

  4. ready allows progression

  5. Log override decisions with rationale and expiration.

  6. Feed readiness score into ranking and investor outputs.

Data model additions

  • readiness_scores
  • readiness_dimension_scores
  • readiness_gaps
  • readiness_overrides

Validation checklist

  • Deterministic score recomputation for same inputs
  • Weight/version traceability in audit logs
  • No launch transition when blocking gaps exist
  • Reviewer agreement on top blockers vs generated blockers