Rishav Raj

77 of 100, ranked 10 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, ≥ 83 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 89; they score 77. That difference is carried by change discipline (75 against a cohort median of 100, worth -8.2 points) and consistency (35 against a cohort median of 52, worth -3.7 points). 3 of 6 components (completed work, infrastructure, review) could not be measured at all, so the remaining weights were rescaled — this score rests on 55% 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 77 − 89 = -12, where 89 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: 41.4 hours tracked, 9 commits, 9,450 lines changed, 46.6% activity, first-pass CI 0%. 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.