Problem solving / RCA
Fit-criteria scorecard
Fit-criteria scorecard is licensed CC BY 4.0. Attribution: Katafacts (katafacts.com).
Customise with AISkill file ↓1 · What it is
What it is
A fit-criteria scorecard is the operational, repeatable counterpart to the ICP canvas's definitional, built-once profile — the same weighted decision matrix discipline, pointed at real prospect accounts instead of a generic decision. Score each account 1 to 5 against firmographic fit, technographic fit, trigger strength, and buying-committee access, weighted by how much each one actually predicts a fast, clean win in your own deal history — not split evenly by default. The composite score and priority/consider/deprioritize tier are computed from those weights and scores, so the account worth calling next is a defensible answer, not a hunch.
2 · When to use it
When to use it — and when not to
Use it when
- You have a real list of named prospect accounts (from a TAM coverage map, an inbound queue, or an outbound list) and need to decide which ones actually deserve outreach effort next.
- You've already built an ICP canvas and know which signals — a specific trigger, an exec sponsor, a specific tech stack — actually predict a fast, clean win in your own deal history, not just in theory.
- You want to say plainly that some tracked accounts aren't worth chasing yet, not flatter every account on the list with a similar-looking score.
Not when
- You don't have a real ICP canvas yet — build that first; this tool scores accounts against criteria the canvas should already have defined, not invents them here.
- You're evaluating a single account in depth for a live deal — a deal A3 or a value hypothesis is the right depth for a deal already in motion, not a comparative score against other accounts.
- Every criterion in your ICP genuinely matters equally — an even split is a real, defensible weighting choice, but check that it's actually true rather than the path of least resistance.
3 · How to fill it in
How to fill it in
- Decision
- Which accounts are being prioritized, and against what list or segment?
- Criteria and weights
- Pull straight from your ICP canvas's sections — firmographic fit, technographic fit, trigger strength, buying-committee access — weighted by how much each one actually predicts a win in your own deal history, not split evenly by default.
- Options, scored
- For each account, score it 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest) against every criterion — your own honest read of the account, never AI-scored. The composite score and tier are computed, never entered directly.
- Narrative
- Drafted from the computed ranking, naming which account deserves the next call and why.
4 · What good looks like
What good looks like
The example below scores three of a TAM coverage map's own tracked mid-market logistics accounts — including that map's own 'dark account' with zero contacts, which scores lowest here rather than being flattered by an even-handed score.
Same example, as a downloadable xlsx workbook.
Download .xlsxWeighted decision matrix
Beacon Analytics — mid-market logistics fit-criteria scorecard
Prioritizing which of the TAM coverage map's tracked mid-market logistics accounts to invest further outreach in next, ahead of the segment's other 30 untracked accounts.
Sam Cole, Sales Enablement · 2027-02-17
Decision
Prioritizing which of the TAM coverage map's tracked mid-market logistics accounts to invest further outreach in next, ahead of the segment's other 30 untracked accounts.
Criteria and weights
- Buying-committee access30%
- Trigger strength30%
- Firmographic fit20%
- Technographic fit20%
Options, scored
Summit Carriers
76/100 · PriorityBuying-committee access: 3/5 · Trigger strength: 5/5 · Firmographic fit: 3/5 · Technographic fit: 4/5
Meridian Logistics
68/100 · ConsiderBuying-committee access: 3/5 · Trigger strength: 3/5 · Firmographic fit: 4/5 · Technographic fit: 4/5
Apex Distribution
32/100 · DeprioritizeBuying-committee access: 1/5 · Trigger strength: 1/5 · Firmographic fit: 3/5 · Technographic fit: 2/5
Narrative
Summit Carriers is the vital-few priority account, at 76/100 — its enterprise size runs slightly larger than the ICP canvas's mid-market sweet spot, but a real board-level forecast-accuracy trigger and an identified economic buyer outweigh that firmographic mismatch under this weighting. Meridian Logistics sits at 68, a real consider: solid firmographic and technographic fit with both a champion and an economic buyer identified, but no confirmed trigger yet — worth a discovery call to test for one before committing more time. Apex Distribution — the coverage map's own dark account, with no contact at all — scores 32 and belongs at the back of the queue: no evidence of a trigger and no buying-committee access make it the wrong account to invest further outreach in until some real signal shows up.
5 · Common mistakes
Common mistakes
Weighting every criterion evenly by default instead of checking which ones actually predict a win.
Real deal history usually shows one or two signals (an exec sponsor engaged early, a specific trigger) matter far more than the others — an even split throws that evidence away.
Scoring firmographic fit generously just because the account is a named target on a list.
Being on a target list means an account was addressable, not that it's actually a strong fit — conflating the two defeats the reason to score it at all.
Letting a strong score on one criterion (usually firmographic fit) override a weak trigger or no buying-committee access.
The exact failure this tool exists to prevent — a composite score should be able to rank a smaller, better-fit account below a larger one with a real trigger and real access, not the other way around.
6 · What it connects to
What it connects to
upstream
ICP canvas
The ICP canvas defines the criteria this scorecard weighs — firmographics, technographics, triggers, and buying-committee roles — as a one-time definitional exercise; this scorecard applies them repeatedly to real accounts.
TAM coverage map
The TAM coverage map surfaces which accounts are even tracked and how much contact access exists at each; a fit-criteria scorecard is how you decide which of those tracked accounts to invest further outreach in next.
downstream
Value hypothesis
Once a fit-criteria scorecard names an account worth pursuing, a value hypothesis is where the real discovery work on that specific account begins.
7 · Where AI helps
Where AI helps
Judgement — stays yours
- Deciding the real weight each ICP criterion deserves, based on actual deal history
- Deciding an honest fit score for each account against each criterion
Analysis — AI helps
- Drafting the narrative from the ranking actually computed, naming which account deserves the next call and why
Drudgery — automated
- Computing each account's composite score from its weights and scores, every time one changes
- Sorting accounts into priority, consider, and deprioritize tiers
- Exporting to xlsx in the house format
9 · Rate this kata