# Benchmark scorecard

Copy this sheet for each side-by-side evaluation.

---

## Session info

- Date:
- Evaluator:
- Scenario:
- Model / setup A:
- Model / setup B:
- Notes on prompt consistency:

## Criterion scoring

| Criterion                          | A score (0-3) | B score (0-3) | Notes |
| ---------------------------------- | ------------: | ------------: | ----- |
| Upstream problem framing           |               |               |       |
| Follow-up question quality         |               |               |       |
| Recommendation quality             |               |               |       |
| Trade-off and non-decision clarity |               |               |       |
| Artifact reuse quality             |               |               |       |
| Product-leader relevance           |               |               |       |
| Honesty about uncertainty          |               |               |       |
| **Total**                          |               |               |       |

## Quick comparison summary

### Winner on substance

- A / B / Tie

### Why

-
-
-

### Most obvious weakness in A

-

### Most obvious weakness in B

-

### Would I reuse either output in real PM work?

- A:
- B:

### What would I improve in `pm-workbench` after this test?

-
-
- ***

## Lightweight interpretation

- If the winner is obvious in under 2 minutes, the benchmark scenario is probably good.
- If both outputs feel similarly vague, the scenario may be too easy or the prompt may be over-specified.
- If `pm-workbench` loses on recommendation clarity or artifact reuse, that is a useful signal to improve the repo.
