The job
The same call, whoever is looking.
You have six things you weigh up, and after enough years you weigh them in about four seconds. The trouble is that the person who started in March weighs them differently, and so do you on a Friday afternoon.
The result is drift nobody notices: two assessments of the same thing, weeks apart, that do not agree, and no way to see why.
What you get
Your judgement, written down once.
Your criteria, your weightings
The six things you actually weigh, in the proportions you actually use. Not a standard rubric that fits nobody.
It shows how it got there
Which criterion pushed the score up, which pulled it down. You can disagree with it, which is the point.
New people score like you do
The judgement stops living in one head. Someone in their first week reaches the same answer you would.
Same input, same output
Every time, Friday afternoon included. That is the whole proposition.
Who it suits
A second opinion, not the decision.
This suits anyone making the same judgement repeatedly where consistency matters more than speed: condition reports, triage order, intake screening, quality checks.
It applies the rules you gave it. It does not know the thing in front of you, it cannot see what you can see, and it has no opinion about the exception. The call stays yours. If a score would decide something that affects a person, a tenancy or a treatment, it belongs alongside your judgement rather than in place of it.
And nothing is filed. The score is on the screen and on that device, so it is a way to think consistently rather than a record anyone can produce later.
Getting one
Describe how you decide.
What you look at, which of those matters most, and the thing that overrides everything else when you see it.
Usually about three minutes8 from that to a working tool you can open.