The output
| Field | What it holds |
|---|---|
format | The format this video was scored as (from the classification layer) |
overall | 0–10, the weighted mean of the dimension scores |
dimensions | One entry per dimension: key, label, score (0–10), read (a one-line concrete note), weight |
verdict | A one-line synthesis of the whole scorecard |
benchmark | Which band the overall score lands in |
Benchmark bands
| Overall | Read |
|---|---|
| 8.0+ | Top-tier execution for its format |
| 6.5–7.9 | Solid; a few fixable weak points |
| 5.0–6.4 | Middling — clear room to sharpen |
| Below 5.0 | Below the bar for this format |
Dimension sets by format
Each format gets its own dimensions and weights. The B2B ad rubric, for example:| Dimension | Weight | What’s judged |
|---|---|---|
| Hook · first 3s | 0.30 | Does the open grab with a concrete, countable cost or tension — not a tagline? |
| Problem → cut → calm | 0.25 | Is there a clean escalate → hard-cut → reveal arc? Is the cut decisive? |
| Brand restraint | 0.15 | Is the product held back until the calm, with minimal screen time? |
| Direct CTA | 0.15 | Is the close direct — brand and URL clear — not a logo flourish? |
| Production polish | 0.15 | Lighting, motion, edit quality relative to the format’s bar |
| Format | Dimensions (heaviest first) |
|---|---|
ugc_ad | First 3 seconds · native/un-ad feel · persona & trust · payoff/demo · CTA clarity |
short_form_hook | First 3 seconds · loop/retention · payoff · one clear idea |
long_form_doc | Narrative arc · b-roll support · act breaks & re-hooks · retention engineering · authority |
explainer | Concept clarity · visual metaphor density · logical build · retention · hook |
tutorial | Step clarity · completeness · pacing · hook/why-watch · screen clarity |
product_demo | Value clarity · demo flow · proof/outcome · CTA · production |
vlog | Hook · story through-line · personality · pacing & edit · payoff |
cinematic | Visual craft · mood/atmosphere · sound design · emotional arc |
news_commentary | Argument clarity · hook/framing · credibility · pacing |
| anything else | Hook · structure · retention · clarity · production |
read — a one-line, concrete note on why it scored that way, grounded in the blueprint and script data rather than generic praise.
What to do with it
- Read the
readlines before the numbers. “Hook 6.2 — opens on a tagline, tension arrives at second 9” tells you what to fix; the number alone doesn’t. - Weight your revisions like the rubric weights. On a B2B ad, a +1 on the hook moves the overall twice as much as a +1 on polish. Spend your iteration budget accordingly.
- Compare videos within a format only. A 7.4 tutorial and a 7.4 cinematic film are both good — at completely different things. Cross-format comparison is what the format-aware design exists to prevent.
- If the format looks wrong, check the classification. The scorecard inherits its rubric from What it’s selling — a misread format means a misfit rubric, and that layer records the evidence for its call.
Related layers
What it's selling
The classification that picks this scorecard’s rubric.
Hooks & re-hooks
The hook dimension, unpacked.
Script analysis
The narrative data the scores are grounded in.
The Blueprint
The visual data behind the production dimensions.