Method

A score you can open up.

A score you can open up.

Every score shows the standard, evidence, gaps, and fixes behind it.

Standards exist as documents

Knowing a standard exists does not mean work conforms to it.

Professional standards are written as bodies of knowledge, frameworks, and guidance. They tell you what good looks like. They do not check whether the work in front of you meets the bar.

Kryterea closes that gap. It translates the relevant standard into structured evaluation criteria and applies them throughout the preparation process, not only at the end. The method governs clarification, planning, documentation, and validation, so every stage of the foundation is held to the same discipline.

See the product

The validation loop

Validation is part of the work.

The gate is not a final review. It runs throughout production, so a weakness surfaces while you can still fix it.

  1. Create

    The deliverable is produced within the capability workflow: research, analysis, structuring, and drafting in the order the work type requires.

  2. Assess

    The rubric for that deliverable type is applied. Each criterion returns a score and the evidence that produced it.

  3. Diagnose

    Findings name what is weak, what is missing, and what would fix it. The gate explains failure rather than merely reporting it.

  4. Improve

    The work is revised against the findings. Changes are traceable: you can see what moved and why.

  5. Reassess

    The rubric runs again on the revised work. The new score lands with its own findings, so progress is visible.

  6. Approve

    You read the findings and decide. The system does not record the work as accepted on your behalf.

The rubric library

What each deliverable type is measured against.

The gate explains failure.

A score that says 68 is useless on its own. A score that says 68 because three acceptance criteria use subjective language and one dependency has no fallback tells you what to fix and in what order.

Every finding names the problem, states why it matters, and describes what would resolve it. The result is a diagnostic, not a verdict.

Inside every result

Enough to challenge. Enough to approve.

Assessment record

Ready for a human decision

Traceable result

Input

What was assessed

The deliverable type, its scope, and the version of the rubric that was applied.

Deliverable
Recorded
Scope
Bounded
Rubric
Versioned

Evidence returned

What passed

Criteria that met the bar, with the evidence that satisfied each one.

Evidence attached

What failed

Criteria that fell short, with the specific gap and the fix that would close it.

Gap and fix named

What remains uncertain

Open questions, unstated assumptions, and areas where the evidence was insufficient to score.

Held open, not guessed

Accountability

Who owns the decision

The person accountable for accepting the work, named before the gate runs.

Human approval required

Quality is defined in relation to intended use.

The relevant question is not whether the foundation is perfect. It is whether the foundation is sufficient for the person, team, or system that will build from it.

That is the basis for the Kryterea gate. It measures fitness for purpose, not compliance for its own sake.

Argue with the standard.

Put a real deliverable through the gate. Read the findings. If the rubric missed something, that is the conversation worth having.

The rubric library is published. The gate is open.