{
  "name": "Lead Source Quality Score",
  "version": "2026-09-06",
  "max_score": 24,
  "use_case": "Compare lead source quality for freelancers and small service businesses without storing private client details.",
  "criteria": [
    {
      "criterion": "client_fit",
      "label": "Client fit",
      "zero_points": "Most inquiries are outside the service scope.",
      "two_points": "Some inquiries match, but sorting takes time.",
      "four_points": "Most inquiries match the intended client profile."
    },
    {
      "criterion": "problem_urgency",
      "label": "Problem urgency",
      "zero_points": "The need is vague or far in the future.",
      "two_points": "The need is real, but timing is inconsistent.",
      "four_points": "The source regularly brings timely problems."
    },
    {
      "criterion": "trust_before_contact",
      "label": "Trust before contact",
      "zero_points": "The lead does not know why this provider might fit.",
      "two_points": "The lead has seen some work or context.",
      "four_points": "The lead arrives with referral, proof, or clear context."
    },
    {
      "criterion": "request_clarity",
      "label": "Request clarity",
      "zero_points": "The first message lacks outcome, scope, or constraints.",
      "two_points": "Some details are present, but follow-up questions are needed.",
      "four_points": "The first message includes the core decision details."
    },
    {
      "criterion": "follow_up_effort",
      "label": "Follow-up effort",
      "zero_points": "Many replies are required before a decision is possible.",
      "two_points": "One or two clarification rounds are normal.",
      "four_points": "The next action is obvious after the first response."
    },
    {
      "criterion": "repeatability",
      "label": "Repeatability",
      "zero_points": "The source is random or hard to influence.",
      "two_points": "The source can be nudged but is not predictable.",
      "four_points": "The source can be improved through content, referrals, profile work, or outreach."
    }
  ],
  "interpretation": [
    {
      "range": "0-7",
      "label": "weak",
      "action": "Reduce attention unless this source has strategic learning value."
    },
    {
      "range": "8-11",
      "label": "noisy",
      "action": "Improve profile wording, intake questions, or referral instructions before scaling."
    },
    {
      "range": "12-17",
      "label": "promising",
      "action": "Keep tracking and add a clearer qualification step."
    },
    {
      "range": "18-21",
      "label": "strong",
      "action": "Protect the source and study what creates good-fit inquiries."
    },
    {
      "range": "22-24",
      "label": "excellent",
      "action": "Create a repeatable playbook while checking that volume does not lower quality."
    }
  ],
  "privacy_boundary": "Use anonymous source labels. Do not include names, emails, phone numbers, contract details, personal identifiers, or confidential project notes."
}