Definitions
Priority metrics have plain-English meanings, inclusions, exclusions, and safe-use notes.
Reporting Trust Scorecard
Check where reporting trust is breaking
A first-pass assessment for reports people keep debating
Use this scorecard to inspect one disputed metric, dashboard, spreadsheet, or finance pack before commissioning another report. It helps you spot whether the problem is meaning, ownership, source path, caveats, duplication, or automation risk.
When to use it
Use it when the meeting keeps returning to the number
The scorecard is for problem-aware readers who know something is wrong but do not yet know where to inspect. It deliberately stays lightweight so it does not replace the deeper workbook and planning assets in the Reporting Blueprint Toolkit.
- Use it for one metric: revenue, active customers, pipeline, churn, margin, conversion, or another decision-critical number.
- Use it before rebuilding: the lowest score usually shows what to fix before a new dashboard helps.
- Use it with stakeholders: the point is shared evidence, not a private data-team audit.
Six dimensions
Score the parts that make a number safe to use
Ownership
Business and technical owners are named, active, and able to approve changes.
Lineage
Important numbers can be traced from source system to report without relying on memory.
Caveats
Users can see timing rules, freshness, known limits, and approval status before acting.
Duplication
Duplicate dashboards, shadow reports, and ownerless versions are visible and managed.
AI readiness
Automated summaries and AI workflows use only metrics with enough trusted context.
How to score
Keep the scoring simple enough to use in a real meeting
Give each dimension a score from 0 to 2. A low score is not a failure; it is a signal about where trust is breaking. The practical question is which weak point creates the most decision drag.
0Unclear, undocumented, or disputed.
1Partly clear, but dependent on people, caveats, or local knowledge.
2Clear enough for the decision and visible to the people using it.
First pass
Run the scorecard in four moves
1. Choose one metric
Choose one important metric or report that creates recurring disagreement.
2. Score the evidence
Score each dimension as 0, 1, or 2 based on the evidence you can see today.
3. Find the weak point
Look for the lowest-scoring dimension before asking for another dashboard.
4. Decide the next move
Use the result to decide whether the next move is definition, ownership, lineage, caveat, cleanup, or automation control.
Interpretation
Use the score to choose the next conversation
The score is not a grade. It is a way to make the weak point visible enough that the next conversation becomes specific. A low definition score needs a meaning conversation. A low lineage score needs a source path conversation. A low caveats score needs a safe-use conversation.
Fragile
The metric is likely dependent on local knowledge, manual checks, or one person's explanation.
Patchy
Some trust signals exist, but the weakest dimension is still creating decision drag.
Usable
The number can support decisions in the right context, but caveats and ownership still matter.
Trusted
The metric has enough visible context to be used confidently for its intended decision.
Lowest score
What to do with the weakest dimension
The most useful output is usually not the total. It is the lowest dimension score. Use that weak point to decide which conversation should happen next, then use the related guide for more context.
If definitions score lowest
Pause the report debate and agree what the metric means, where it is safe to use, and which variants need separate labels.
Read the KPI definition guideIf ownership scores lowest
Name the business owner for meaning and the technical owner for the reporting path before changing the dashboard.
Read about reporting contractsIf lineage scores lowest
Trace where the number starts, where it changes, and where manual logic enters before comparing final outputs.
Read the lineage guideIf caveats score lowest
Make timing rules, freshness, exclusions, and approval status visible so people know when the number is safe to use.
Read the reconciliation checklistIf duplication scores lowest
Identify duplicate dashboards, shadow spreadsheets, and ownerless versions before deciding which view is authoritative.
Read about dashboard sprawlIf AI readiness scores lowest
Do not let summaries, copilots, or automated workflows reuse numbers that lack enough trusted context.
Read the AI readiness guideMeeting use
Use it as a meeting reset, not a reporting audit
The scorecard works best when the business is stuck debating a number and needs a narrower next step. Keep the scope to one metric, one decision, and one trust gap.
Before the meeting
Pick one disputed metric and score it privately against the six dimensions. Bring evidence, not a long audit.
During the meeting
Share the lowest score first. Keep the conversation on the missing trust signal rather than the whole reporting estate.
After the meeting
Agree one next action: clarify meaning, name an owner, trace the path, expose caveats, retire duplicates, or pause automation.
Next step
Want the deeper framework behind the scorecard?
The free chapter explains why reporting trust breaks before more dashboards, automation, or AI can fix it.