Building Toward Criteria

From these observations, you can start to build toward actual criteria. A criterion is something you can test for. Either the work has it or doesn't, or it has it to different degrees. A criterion should be specific enough that two different evaluators, using the same rubric, would likely reach similar conclusions.

"The opening establishes why the problem matters" is closer to a criterion than "the writing is excellent." You could argue about whether someone actually understood why it matters or whether their justification is convincing. But you could also point to the text and say "here, in the opening, is where the author addressed stakes" or "the opening launches immediately into the solution without explaining why we should care."

The rubric you're building should have somewhere between four and eight criteria. Fewer than that and it's too vague. More than that and it becomes hard to apply consistently—you're tracking too much. Each criterion should be specific enough to recognize and test for, but broad enough to apply across variations of the task.

For a strategic proposal, criteria might include: Does it clearly frame the problem and establish stakes? Is the logic sound—does each major point follow from the previous? Does it address likely objections or complications? Is it specific enough to execute from? For a design, criteria might include: Is the visual hierarchy clear? Do the elements reinforce the message? Is there internal consistency? For a piece of writing, criteria might include: Is the opening engaging and does it establish stakes? Is the structure logical? Is the voice consistent?

These are not the same as "does it follow the Chicago Manual of Style" or "does the designer know Figma." Those are technical competencies. Rubric criteria are about the quality of the work itself.