# WEIGHTED SCORING RUBRIC FOR EXPERT-LEVEL MARKDOWN FILE COMPARISON

## SCORING SCALE
Use the following scale for each category:

- 5 = Excellent / No meaningful issues / Fully aligned
- 4 = Strong / Minor issues only
- 3 = Adequate / Noticeable issues but usable
- 2 = Weak / Significant problems
- 1 = Poor / Major deficiencies
- 0 = Broken / Missing / Not applicable in a failing way

## SCORING METHOD
For each category:
- Assign a score from 0 to 5
- Multiply score by category weight
- Divide by 5 to get weighted points earned

Formula:
Weighted Points Earned = (Score / 5) x Category Weight

Maximum Total Score = 100

---

## RUBRIC CATEGORIES

### 1. File Identity and Scope
- Weight: 3
- Evaluate whether both files represent the same document purpose, scope, version family, and intended rendering environment.
- Check filename logic, version indicators, canonical-source status, and target platform assumptions.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 3

### 2. Document Purpose and Intent
- Weight: 4
- Evaluate whether both files serve the same communication goal and preserve the intended function of the document.
- Check whether changes altered instructional, technical, narrative, procedural, or persuasive purpose.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 4

### 3. Front Matter and Metadata
- Weight: 6
- Evaluate presence, validity, consistency, and semantic accuracy of YAML/TOML/JSON front matter.
- Compare metadata keys, values, date formats, tags, slug, layout, draft status, and parser safety.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 6

### 4. Title and Heading Hierarchy
- Weight: 7
- Evaluate heading structure, semantic nesting, H1 usage, section ordering, anchor stability, and scanability.
- Check for skipped levels, duplicate headings, or heading text that materially changes meaning.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 7

### 5. Section Presence and Coverage
- Weight: 7
- Evaluate completeness of sections, topic coverage, disclaimers, appendices, notes, and required content.
- Compare missing, added, merged, or removed sections for material impact.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 7

### 6. Content Fidelity and Meaning Preservation
- Weight: 12
- Evaluate whether semantic meaning, requirements, caveats, and intent are preserved.
- Compare paraphrases, omissions, additions, softened language, stronger language, contradictions, and semantic drift.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 12

### 7. Accuracy and Factual Consistency
- Weight: 9
- Evaluate factual correctness across both documents.
- Compare dates, names, figures, versions, claims, examples, and internal consistency.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 9

### 8. Completeness of Technical Detail
- Weight: 8
- Evaluate technical depth, prerequisites, dependencies, assumptions, validation steps, and troubleshooting content.
- Check whether either file omits steps needed for correct execution or understanding.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 8

### 9. Structural Coherence and Flow
- Weight: 5
- Evaluate order of ideas, transitions, readability of progression, and narrative or procedural logic.
- Check whether the document builds properly from premise to explanation to action.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 5

### 10. Paragraph and Sentence Quality
- Weight: 4
- Evaluate clarity, grammar, concision, ambiguity, punctuation, and readability at paragraph and sentence level.
- Check whether wording changes improve or degrade precision.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 4

### 11. Terminology and Lexical Consistency
- Weight: 4
- Evaluate consistency of terms, labels, naming conventions, capitalization, and defined concepts.
- Check for synonym drift, jargon mismatch, or terminology confusion.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 4

### 12. Voice, Tone, and Register
- Weight: 3
- Evaluate audience-appropriate tone, professionalism, consistency, and rhetorical alignment.
- Check for unintended tone shifts or audience mismatch.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 3

### 13. Style Guide Compliance
- Weight: 3
- Evaluate consistency with house style, capitalization standards, list style, formatting conventions, and writing norms.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 3

### 14. Markdown Syntax Correctness
- Weight: 8
- Evaluate syntax validity for headings, lists, code fences, links, images, tables, emphasis, and escaping.
- Check for malformed markdown, broken nesting, parser-sensitive errors, and fence issues.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 8

### 15. Renderer Compatibility
- Weight: 5
- Evaluate compatibility with CommonMark, GFM, static site generators, knowledge-base tools, and mixed renderers.
- Check portability and extension reliance.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 5

### 16. Lists, Tables, Links, and Media
- Weight: 4
- Evaluate structural correctness and clarity of lists, tables, links, images, captions, alt text, and references.
- Check functionality and readability of supporting structures.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 4

### 17. Code Blocks and Inline Code
- Weight: 4
- Evaluate literal formatting, language labels, copy safety, indentation, escaping, and technical correctness of code snippets.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 4

### 18. Accessibility
- Weight: 4
- Evaluate semantic headings, descriptive links, alt text, screen-reader friendliness, and linear reading order.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 4

### 19. Security and Privacy Review
- Weight: 2
- Evaluate whether either file exposes secrets, credentials, internal URLs, PII, or unsafe publication content.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 2

### 20. Maintainability and Publication Readiness
- Weight: 6
- Evaluate long-term maintainability, diff cleanliness, reuse potential, reviewer friendliness, and readiness for publication or deployment.
- Score: __ / 5
- Weighted Points: __ / 6

---

## TOTALS

- Total Weighted Points Earned: __ / 100

## RECOMMENDED INTERPRETATION

- 95-100 = Exceptional / Publication-ready / Canonical as hell
- 85-94 = Strong / Minor cleanup recommended
- 70-84 = Usable / Needs targeted revision
- 50-69 = Weak / Significant correction required
- Below 50 = Not reliable / Rework this bastard before release

## FINAL JUDGMENT
- Preferred File: ______________________
- Secondary File: ______________________
- Major Risks:
  - ______________________
  - ______________________
  - ______________________
- Critical Differences:
  - ______________________
  - ______________________
  - ______________________
- Recommendation:
  - Merge
  - Replace
  - Reconcile
  - Reject
  - Escalate for subject-matter review

- Reviewer Confidence Level:
  - Low
  - Medium
  - High

**DAS ENDE**