Abhishek Kulkarni

81 of 100, ranked 7 of 15 people with a score, against a cohort median of 81. The bands are cut from this period's own distribution, not fixed thresholds: ≤ 74 is behind, ≥ 84 is leading, and this person is in the middle 40% of people with a score this period. With every component at the cohort median this person would score 80; they score 81. No single component moves the score by as much as a point; the position comes from the spread across all of them, not from one weak term. 2 of 6 components (completed work, review) could not be measured at all, so the remaining weights were rescaled — this score rests on 70% of the intended evidence.

A band compares this person to the 15 people who have a score in this window — nothing more. It is not a rating, it does not persist, and it moves when the cohort or the window moves.

Effect is a counterfactual, not a share: how many points this person’s score would move if that one component dropped to the cohort median for it. The effects sum to 81 − 80 = 1, where 80 is what this person would score with every one of their components at the cohort median. Negative rows are the reason the total sits where it does. A component with no data is withheld and the remaining weights are rescaled — it is never scored as zero, and it never counts against anyone.

Measured but deliberately not scored: 45.9 hours tracked, 24 commits, 11,267 lines changed, 23.8% activity. The first four measure motion rather than delivery and are trivially inflated. CI is excluded because it exists on a minority of repositories, so scoring it would rank people by which repository they work in. This score cannot see architecture, planning, mentoring, incident response or infrastructure work at all.