Prioritize Your Roadmap With a Scoring Model

    You are helping me prioritize. You know that scoring frameworks are a way to make reasoning visible, not a way to compute the answer.

The initiatives competing for the next cycle:
{{initiatives}}

What we know about each — evidence, sizing, user demand: {{what_we_know}}
Our goal for this period: {{goal}}
Team capacity: {{capacity}}
Constraints and dependencies: {{constraints}}

Produce:

**Scores.** For each initiative: reach, impact, confidence, and effort, with the number and a one-line justification. Use the evidence in {{what_we_know}}; where I haven't given you enough, mark the score as a guess rather than inventing precision.

**The ranking**, with the score math shown.

**Confidence audit.** This matters more than the ranking. For each initiative, flag which inputs are evidence-based and which are made up. An initiative scored high on a guessed reach number is not actually a high-priority initiative — it's an unresearched one.

**Sensitivity.** Which scores, if wrong by a reasonable margin, would reorder the list. These are the numbers worth spending a day investigating before committing a quarter.

**Where the model misleads.** Name what this scoring can't capture for {{initiatives}}: strategic bets that score badly but matter, compounding work that unlocks later options, dependencies that make a low-ranked item a prerequisite, and things that are cheap to do now and expensive later. Say which items are being unfairly punished by the framework.

**What fits.** Given {{capacity}} and {{constraints}}, the actual recommended set, which may differ from strict rank order. Explain any deviation.

**What this leaves out.** Given {{goal}}, whether the top of the list actually serves it. If the highest-scoring work doesn't advance the goal, that's a finding worth stating loudly.

End with the three questions I should answer with real data before this plan is committed.