The standard
v1.1.0Scoring methodology
The Wardict Score is a 5–100 viability score. The Warden scores 5 dimensions independently (1–20 each), then sums them. Judgment follows analysis, never the other way around. This is the exact rubric the Warden is held to, published in full. Every verdict is stamped with the methodology version it was scored under, so rulings stay comparable over time.
The 5 dimensions
Market Pull
Is there EVIDENCE people actively want this and will pay for it?
- 1–4
- No evidence of demand, hypothetical problem
- 5–8
- Anecdotal interest or adjacent demand exists, but unproven for THIS specific product
- 9–12
- Moderate evidence: people are searching for solutions, some willingness to pay demonstrated
- 13–16
- Clear demand signals: existing budget, active buyer searches, or proven pain point with $$ attached
- 17–20
- Proven acute pain: people are already paying for inferior alternatives, strong pull
Buyer Clarity
Is there a specific buyer with budget, authority, and urgency to purchase?
- 1–4
- No identifiable buyer, or buyer ≠ user with no clear path to revenue
- 5–8
- Vague segment ("parents", "small businesses") but no evidence of purchase intent or budget
- 9–12
- Identifiable buyer segment with some evidence of budget, but urgency unclear
- 13–16
- Known buyer with demonstrated budget and purchasing behavior in this category
- 17–20
- Buyer actively seeking solutions, budget allocated, short sales cycle
Distribution Feasibility
Can you reach buyers through a REPEATABLE, cost-effective channel?
- 1–4
- No obvious path to buyers, or entirely dependent on virality/luck
- 5–8
- Channels exist in theory but are crowded, expensive, or unproven for this product
- 9–12
- Plausible channel with some evidence of feasibility, but CAC unclear
- 13–16
- Tested distribution channel exists for similar products, reasonable CAC
- 17–20
- Proven repeatable channel with demonstrated unit economics
Competitive Edge
What CONCRETE, DEFENSIBLE advantage does this have over existing alternatives?
- 1–4
- Pure commodity, or free/built-in alternatives already exist (Google, Canva, ChatGPT, etc.)
- 5–8
- Minor differentiation that could be easily replicated, or "AI wrapper" over existing tools
- 9–12
- Meaningful differentiation in one area, but not clearly defensible
- 13–16
- Strong advantage from proprietary data, network effects, or deep domain expertise
- 17–20
- Defensible moat: switching costs, regulatory advantage, or compounding network effects
Execution Feasibility
How feasible is building AND SUSTAINING this as a business?
- 1–4
- Requires breakthrough technology or impossible operational constraints
- 5–8
- Technically buildable but significant operational, regulatory, or scaling challenges
- 9–12
- Buildable with standard technology, moderate operational complexity
- 13–16
- Well-understood tech stack and operations, clear path to ship
- 17–20
- Straightforward to build, operate, and scale
Verdict thresholds
- PARDONED
- 85–100Strong evidence of viability across most dimensions
- PAROLED
- 70–84Viable with a clear path: strong in some dimensions, acceptable in others
- PROBATION
- 50–69Significant issues but fixable: some strong dimensions, some weak
- GUILTY
- 25–49Fatal structural flaws in multiple dimensions
- CONDEMNED
- 5–24Fails on nearly every dimension. Reserve for truly unviable ideas
Calibration anchors
Worked reference points the Warden uses to gut-check dimension scores, so similar ideas are sentenced consistently.
Score ~80+ (PAROLED/PARDONED)
Most dimensions 14+. Proven pain point, known buyer with budget, demonstrated distribution channel, real competitive advantage.
e.g. “B2B tool replacing a manual process companies already spend $50K+/year on.”
Score ~55-65 (PROBATION)
Mix of strong (12-15) and weak (5-8) dimensions. Real market signal exists but significant gaps in distribution, competition, or buyer clarity.
e.g. “Real pain point, but crowded market and no clear distribution edge.”
Score ~35-45 (GUILTY)
Most dimensions 5-9. Speculative demand, vague buyer, crowded market, or "AI wrapper" over free tools.
e.g. “Consumer app in a category where free alternatives already exist.”
Score ~15-25 (CONDEMNED)
Most dimensions 1-5. No evidence of demand, no buyer, no path to market, no edge.
e.g. “Solution looking for a problem with no evidence anyone cares.”
How the court stays honest
A generic model gives everyone a different opinion with no published standard behind it. The Wardict Score is held to a versioned rubric, reviewed by people, and sharper with every case. That is why a better base model lifts it rather than replacing it.
A published standard
This page is the rubric in full, versioned and citable. Every verdict is stamped with the version it was judged under, so a ruling can always be traced to the exact standard behind it.
A human panel
The Warden is not the last word. Flagged and sampled verdicts are routed to a human panel of founders and investors, and recurring blind spots are encoded into the next version of this rubric. A human always decides what is real and how to encode it.
A growing record
Wardict follows up to learn what actually happened to judged ideas. No foundation model has that record. It is what lets the standard improve as the base models do.