Values and decisions
How can I tell whether a decision criterion is relevant or merely easy to measure?
A decision criterion is relevant when it represents an objective, boundary, or trade-off that could reasonably change your choice. Ease of measurement is only a convenience. Ask what result the criterion represents, how a different rating would affect the decision, whether it links to the stated objective, whether the available measure actually captures it, and what important effects remain outside the measure. If a criterion is easy to score but cannot alter the decision—or the number is only a weak proxy—remove, relabel, or pair it with a better observation.
Start with what could change the decision
A criterion belongs in a comparison when better or worse performance on it could reasonably change the choice because it represents the stated objective, a real boundary, or a trade-off you are willing to make. A number is not relevant merely because it is available, precise, or easy to score. If changing the rating would never change the choice or next action, the item is probably background information rather than a decision criterion.
The 2026 Green Book says an initial ranking is not sufficient for a decision, an option must meet the proposal's objectives, and balanced judgment also considers effects that are not monetised, risks, uncertainties, public cost, and distribution. That is formal public-policy guidance. The proportionate low-stakes transfer is to test whether each criterion is tied to the decision and to keep important unscored effects visible.
Run the RULER check
RULER is a Forever Free Compass framework, not an external research finding. Write one short answer for each field before keeping a criterion in your scorecard.
- Result represented: name the outcome, boundary, or trade-off the criterion is meant to show. Replace labels such as fit, quality, or potential with the specific difference you care about.
- Use in the decision: write what a high, medium, or low result could authorize. If no plausible result changes the ranking, removes an option, or alters the next step, the criterion is not doing decision work.
- Link to the objective: trace the criterion to the same stated objective, beneficiary, setting, and time horizon used for every option. Do not score a feature simply because it is interesting.
- Evidence fit: check whether the observation or number actually represents the criterion. Label assumptions, weak proxies, missing context, and uncertainty instead of treating a precise measure as a precise conclusion.
- Remainder visible: name what the measure leaves out, including qualitative effects, distribution, interactions, burden, or a boundary that must remain outside the total.
Separate the criterion from its measure
The criterion is the difference that matters to the choice; the measure is the observation used to judge that difference. CDC guidance distinguishes the concept, indicator, and measure, and says indicators and measures should align with the evaluation question. It also notes that the suitable measure can be quantitative or qualitative depending on the question.
For example, schedule compatibility may be a relevant criterion. The number of free evenings is one possible measure, but it may miss travel, caregiving, recovery time, or whether those evenings occur when the option is available. Keep the criterion, improve or qualify the measure, and record the remainder instead of replacing a meaningful question with the easiest count.
Watch for convenient proxies
CDC's Program Evaluation Framework describes a common temptation to focus on inputs, activities, and outputs because outcomes are harder to measure. It recommends outcome measures when they fit the stage and question, while keeping the number and burden of indicators proportionate. Government analysis guidance similarly requires analysis that is sufficient to answer the question, uses fit-for-purpose data, remains relevant, and states assumptions, uncertainty, limitations, and appropriate use.
Use these signals to repair a scorecard before interpreting its total.
| Easy measure | Possible criterion | Relevance check |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest stated price | Affordable total commitment | Include recurring cost, time, switching cost, and the actual budget boundary |
| Shortest travel time | Sustainable access | Check schedule reliability, frequency, energy, and the relevant time horizon |
| Most listed features | Ability to achieve the objective | Keep only features that serve the stated use; do not reward unused extras |
| Highest activity count | Meaningful progress | Ask whether the activity is linked to the intended result rather than merely completed |
| Most positive reactions | Useful fit for the people affected | Check whose perspective is missing, the question asked, context, and consent |
Keep the check proportionate
For a low-stakes, reversible choice, one line per RULER field is enough. Remove a criterion that cannot affect the decision. Relabel one whose wording hides the real concern. Pair a weak number with a direct observation or qualitative note when that better represents the criterion. Keep a real boundary outside any weighted total.
RULER does not make a consequential decision safe or professionally adequate. Do not use a personal scorecard to bypass consent, rights, official requirements, or qualified review for health, legal, financial, employment, housing, safety, or technical matters. In those cases, use the relevant formal process and qualified guidance.
Original contribution
The Forever Free Compass take
Forever Free Compass uses RULER as an original low-stakes criterion-relevance check: Result represented, Use in the decision, Link to the objective, Evidence fit, and Remainder visible. RULER separates the thing that matters from the convenient measure used to observe it. It does not validate a criterion, create objective weights, prove that a proxy is accurate, or replace consent, safety, legal, financial, clinical, technical, employment, housing, or professional guidance.
Sources
- The Green Book (2026) — HM Treasury. Objectives; limits of initial ranking and summary metrics; balanced judgment; unmonetised effects; risk; uncertainty; public cost; distribution.
- Government functional standard GovS 010: Analysis — UK Government Analysis Function. Decision purpose; sufficient analysis; fit-for-purpose data; relevance; applicability; assumptions; uncertainty; limitations; proportionate validation.
- CDC Program Evaluation Framework, 2024 — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outcome versus activity indicators; question-dependent qualitative or quantitative measures; indicator burden; tangential data; data fitness for intended use.
- Step 4 – Gather Credible Evidence — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Distinguishing concepts, indicators, and measures; alignment with evaluation purpose and questions; source relevance; data quantity, quality, and burden.
This is educational reflection, not medical or mental-health care. If distress is persistent, severe, or involves immediate safety, contact a qualified professional or local emergency service.