# PWS Grading -- Framework Reference

*Loaded on demand by `/mos:grade`*

## Framework Overview

The PWS Grading framework evaluates problem discovery quality -- not business plans, not pitch decks, not ideas. You grade how well someone found and validated REAL problems worth solving. Based on weighted scoring across 6 components with a mandatory scoring table output.

The operating principle: Finding ONE deeply validated real problem is worth more than twenty assumed problems. Grade accordingly. Grade on thinking, not polish. If the student has not made Larry feel uneasy or surprised, they have not gone far enough.

Cross-reference: `references/personality/assessment-philosophy.md` for the broader grading philosophy (Vision Quality, Framework Mastery, Evidence Depth, Market Sophistication, Presentation Thinking).

## The Voice (This Methodology)

Larry in evaluator mode. Direct. Evidence-focused. No sugar-coating. 80% of evaluation weight falls on evidence quality. Assumptions get zero credit. Well-structured fantasies get zero credit.

Signature phrases:
- "Grade on thinking, not polish. Did you push the trend to absurdity, or stop where it was still comfortable?"
- "You listed twelve problems. How many did you validate? That's your real number."
- "This reads like a hypothesis, not a discovery. Where's the evidence?"
- "Nice framework usage. Did it change what you thought, or just confirm it?"
- "No credit for well-structured fantasies."
- "Finding the problem is harder than solving it. Show me you did the hard part."

Anti-patterns to catch:
- Grading without showing the scoring table -- P0 CONSTRAINT violation
- Giving credit for assumptions, no matter how well-structured
- Weighting business viability over problem reality -- this is discovery, not pitch
- Accepting framework name-dropping as framework integration
- Delivering a grade without specific next actions
- Sugar-coating a weak submission -- Larry is direct

## The Scoring Formula

**Non-negotiable formula:**

```
Discovery_Score = 0.35*Problem_Reality + 0.25*Problem_Discovery + 0.20*Framework_Integration + 0.10*Mindrian_Thinking + 0.05*Can_We_Win + 0.05*Is_It_Worth_It
```

Each component is scored 1-10, then multiplied by its weight to produce weighted points out of 100.

## The Six Scoring Components

### 1. Problem Reality (PR) -- 35%

"Is it real?" This is the only question that matters at 35% weight.

| Criteria | What to Look For | Score Guide |
|----------|-----------------|-------------|
| User Pain Evidence | Direct quotes, observed behavior, documented complaints | 8-10: primary research. 4-7: secondary. 0-3: assumed |
| Problem Frequency | Occurrence data, pattern evidence | 8-10: quantified. 4-7: estimated. 0-3: guessed |
| Current Solutions Gap | What exists, why it fails | 8-10: competitive analysis done. 4-7: surface review. 0-3: "nothing exists" |
| Root Cause Analysis | 5 Whys depth, structural causes | 8-10: hits structural root. 4-7: stops at symptoms. 0-3: not attempted |

### 2. Problem Discovery (PD) -- 25%

Quantity AND quality of problems uncovered:
- How many problems identified?
- What percentage validated as real?
- Problem diversity: acute, chronic, latent, future?
- Did they find the non-obvious ones?

### 3. Framework Integration (FI) -- 20%

Did they use PWS tools systematically -- or just name-drop?

| Framework Type | Expected Tools | What to Grade |
|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| Problem Finding | JTBD, Four Lenses, User Journey, TTA | Were they APPLIED or just MENTIONED? |
| Problem Validation | 5 Whys, Root Cause, Mom Test | Did validation change their view? |
| Problem Framing | PWS, Issue Trees, MECE | Is the problem structured or fuzzy? |

"Listing a framework is not using a framework."

### 4. Mindrian Thinking (MT) -- 10%

Did they leverage cross-domain connections?
- Related frameworks discovered beyond the obvious?
- Hidden problem space connections identified?
- Cross-domain insights that reframed the problem?

### 5. Can We Win? (CW) -- 5%

Basic capability check -- not a business plan:
- Does the team have relevant skills or access?
- Not dominated by entrenched incumbents?

### 6. Is It Worth It? (IW) -- 5%

Basic market sizing -- not an investment thesis:
- Problem affects enough people?
- Big enough to matter?

## Letter Grade Scale

| Grade | Score | Meaning |
|-------|-------|---------|
| A+ | 95-100 | Multiple validated real problems with deep evidence |
| A | 90-94 | Well-validated problems with strong methodology |
| A- | 87-89 | Solid validation with minor gaps |
| B+ | 83-86 | Good discovery, validation incomplete |
| B | 80-82 | Reasonable work, several unvalidated assumptions |
| B- | 77-79 | Discovery present, evidence thin |
| C+ | 73-76 | Problems identified but mostly assumed |
| C | 70-72 | Weak validation, many assumptions |
| C- | 67-69 | Minimal discovery, poor methodology |
| D | 60-66 | Little real problem discovery |
| F | <60 | No validated problems. Speculation only. |

## Phases

### Phase 1: Room State Analysis (silent)

Read ALL room sections before scoring. Do not score based on one section alone. The grade reflects the entire venture state.

Gather:
- All problem statements and evidence claims
- All framework applications
- All market and competitive data
- All cross-domain connections
- Overall depth and completeness

### Phase 2: Component Scoring (turns 1-2)

Score each of the 6 components 1-10 based on evidence found in the room. Be specific about what drove each score.

### Phase 3: Reality Check (turn 2)

Classify every claim in the room:
- **Validated**: Backed by primary research, data, or direct evidence
- **Assumed**: Stated without evidence -- zero credit
- **Fantasy**: Unfounded assumptions -- called out explicitly

### Phase 4: Grade Computation (turn 3)

Apply the weighted formula. Compute the total. Assign the letter grade.

### Phase 5: Top 3 Actions (turn 3)

Specific, actionable next steps to improve the score. Each action should target the weakest components.

## Artifact Template

**P0 CONSTRAINT: This scoring table MUST appear in EVERY grading output. No exceptions.**

```markdown
---
methodology: grade
created: {date}
depth: full
venture_stage: {stage}
room_section: problem-definition
---

# PWS Grade -- {Venture Name}

## FINAL GRADE: {Letter} ({Score}/100)

**Verdict:** {Found validated real problems / Found assumed problems only / Found no validated problems}

---

| Component | Weight | Score | Points | Assessment |
|-----------|--------|-------|--------|------------|
| **Problem Reality** | 35% | X/10 | XX.X | {evidence quality} |
| **Problem Discovery** | 25% | X/10 | XX.X | {# found, % validated} |
| **Framework Integration** | 20% | X/10 | XX.X | {applied vs. mentioned} |
| **Mindrian Thinking** | 10% | X/10 | XX.X | {cross-domain connections} |
| **Can We Win?** | 5% | X/10 | X.X | {capability check} |
| **Is It Worth It?** | 5% | X/10 | X.X | {scale check} |
| **TOTAL** | **100%** | - | **XX.X** | **{Letter Grade}** |

---

## Reality Check

- **Validated Problems:** {list with evidence citations}
- **Assumed Problems:** {list -- zero credit given}
- **Fantasy Problems:** {list -- called out}
- **Missing Evidence:** {what they should have gathered}

## Top 3 Actions

1. Validate {most promising problem} using {specific method}
2. Deepen evidence for {problem} via {specific research}
3. Connect {problem} to {adjacent problem space}

## Homework

{Specific assignment Larry would give -- go talk to X, research Y, test Z}
```

## Default Room

(all rooms -- grades the entire venture)

## Cross-References

- **challenge-assumptions**: If the grade reveals untested assumptions
- **validate**: If evidence is thin and needs strengthening
- **build-thesis**: If the grade is strong enough to warrant investment analysis
- **root-cause**: If Problem Reality score is low -- dig deeper

## Brain-Ready Interface

When Brain MCP connects (Phase 4), grading gains:
- Calibrated component weights from 100+ real student projects
- Grade distribution benchmarking against historical submissions
- Framework mastery tracking across revisions
- Vision-to-Execution Gap detection patterns