TCRLAS v2.0 · WORKING METHODOLOGY

Five dimensions of commercial viability.

M/C/E/X/R are forward-looking evidence profiles, separate from the independent Nine-Level TCRLAS milestone.

Use each 0–6 ordinal anchor against the specified offering, market, jurisdiction and next action. Higher Risk Manageability means better-controlled risk. No mean or minimum is a validated investment score.

Read the CVA rubric PDF →

M — Market Opportunity

Is an economically meaningful and accessible customer market worth pursuing?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

M — Market Opportunity — evidence anchors
Score	Evidence anchor
0	No credible customer, need or viable accessible market identified; or fundamental demand proposition disproven.
1	Plausible need and potential users/buyers hypothesized, without meaningful independent evidence.
2	Customer types, alternatives and approximate addressable market investigated with preliminary external information.
3	Specific reachable segment, purchasing pathway, demand and willingness-to-pay assumptions credibly documented.
4	Independent customers or purchasing authorities substantiate demand and feasible access to initial market.
5	Representative external demand and concrete procurement or commercial signals support market depth and acquisition assumptions.
6	Repeatable demand in a representative segment with credible continuing access and growth potential demonstrated.

C — Competitive Advantage

Why would the buyer prefer the offering, and can the advantage persist?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

C — Competitive Advantage — evidence anchors
Score	Evidence anchor
0	No credible customer-relevant difference or insurmountable known use-rights issue.
1	Advantage asserted without meaningful comparison.
2	Preliminary comparisons of performance, cost, usability, rights or access identify plausible advantage.
3	Documented material advantage, alternatives and key imitation/rights risks with credible competitive strategy.
4	Independent testing, buyers or market evidence supports advantage, and protection path is credible.
5	Advantage externally supported under realistic competitive comparison; important imitation/rights issues managed.
6	Durable advantage demonstrated through continued customer preference, economics, know-how, rights or switching barriers.

E — Commercial Economics

Does further investment have a credible path to sufficient economic value?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

E — Commercial Economics — evidence anchors
Score	Evidence anchor
0	No viable economics or demonstrably untenable costs with no plausible remedy.
1	Revenue and cost hypotheses only.
2	Preliminary prices, product/service delivery costs, capital needs and sources estimated.
3	Documented margin, cash requirement and break-even model with credible assumptions and sensitivities.
4	Important pricing and costs externally substantiated; plausible economics demonstrated for proposed route.
5	Strong evidence of attractive unit economics and realistic capital needs resilient to material scenarios.
6	Sustained or repeatably validated economics under relevant conditions with credible financing and growth path.

X — Execution Capability

Can accountable parties deliver the specified next milestone?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

X — Execution Capability — evidence anchors
Score	Evidence anchor
0	No feasible execution route; indispensable capabilities/resources inaccessible.
1	Possible team, partners, licensing path or resources merely identified.
2	Initial roles, budgets, dependencies and delivery partners identified.
3	Milestone-specific owners, budget, schedule, dependencies and potential partners credibly documented.
4	Key owners, partners and resources supported by verifiable commitments for next milestone.
5	Proven delivery capability and adequate available/accessible resources with contingency for major milestone.
6	Repeatable resilient execution through capable organization/contracted partners without single-point dependence.

R — Risk Manageability

Are risks identified and controlled sufficiently for the proposed action?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

R — Risk Manageability — evidence anchors
Score	Evidence anchor
0	Established fatal unmanageable risk for proposed action.
1	Material uncertainty largely unexamined; no credible controls.
2	Key legal, safety, technical, financial, operational and commercial uncertainties preliminarily registered.
3	Dated risk register with consequence, uncertainty, owner, mitigation and resolution evidence milestones.
4	Major risks have supported mitigations, contingencies and clear validation milestones.
5	Major exposures controlled or reduced; residual risk acceptable for defined next activity and triggers documented.
6	Controls demonstrably effective under relevant adverse scenarios and sustained monitoring.

Evidence, confidence and contrary findings.

Record dated sources, reviewer, verification, rationale, confidence, contradictory evidence and what would justify the next score. NE is not silently replaced by zero. All five universal CVA dimensions require evaluation; N/A is reserved for justified HSE applicability review.

Record a CVA assessment →

Historical five-dimension rubric (previous version)

The earlier Technical / Market / IP / Business & Team / Funding rubric and its lowest-score rule are preserved here as historical material only. They do not calculate a v2 milestone or CVA profile.

Read the unchanged historical rubric PDF →

Technical Maturity

Does it work reliably, reproducibly, at useful scale, and as an integrated system?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Technical Maturity
Score	Descriptor
0	Not demonstrated
1	Conceptual / theoretical
2	Lab feasibility shown
3	Reproducible & differentiated
4	Functional prototype
5	Pilot-proven
6	Reliable & scalable

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Technical Maturity criteria
Criterion	0–1	2–3	4–5	6
Reproducibility	Hypothesis only	Repeatable in lab	Consistent in prototype	Consistent in real world
Robustness	Unstable	Sensitive to conditions	Tolerant to variation	Predictable under stress
Scalability	Unknown	Hypothesized	Engineered path	Demonstrated

Penalize one-off results. Reward honest failure modes. Do not confuse potential with demonstration.

Market Validation

Who has the problem, how painful is it, what alternatives exist, and will users adopt or pay?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Market Validation
Score	Descriptor
0	No user defined
1	Hypothetical user
2	Problem acknowledged
3	Prototype feedback
4	Intent to adopt
5	Pilot usage
6	Paying / repeat users

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Market Validation criteria
Criterion	0–1	2–3	4–5	6
User definition	Vague	Role identified	Target segment clear	Repeatable segment
Pain point	Inventor-stated	User-acknowledged	Measurable	Costly if unsolved
Alternatives	Ignored	Listed	Compared honestly	Displaced
Willingness to pay	None	Hypothetical	LOI / pilot	Actual payment

Behavior matters more than opinions. Interest is not willingness to pay. A claim of no competitors is a red flag.

Intellectual Property (IP) Strength

Who owns the innovation, is freedom to operate plausible, and is the position defensible?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Intellectual Property (IP) Strength
Score	Descriptor
0	No IP awareness
1	Novelty claimed
2	Disclosure drafted
3	Provisional filed
4	Freedom to Operate considered
5	Protection strategy
6	Defensible position

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Intellectual Property (IP) Strength criteria
Criterion	0–1	2–3	4–5	6
Ownership	Unclear	Identified	Contracted	Enforceable
Prior art	Ignored	Aware	Analyzed	Strategically navigated
Defensibility	None	Patent hope	Strategy defined	Barrier to imitation

A patent does not equal protection. Reward honesty about risks. Penalize the assumption that a patent alone solves defensibility.

Business & Team Readiness

Is the business logic credible, is the regulatory path understood, and can the team execute without depending on one inventor?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Business & Team Readiness
Score	Descriptor
0	No execution thought
1	Conceptual idea
2	Execution hypothesis
3	Roles identified
4	Team forming
5	Team executing
6	Scalable organization

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Business & Team Readiness criteria
Criterion	0–1	2–3	4–5	6
Business logic	Absent	Narrative only	Coherent	Repeatable
Regulatory awareness	Ignored	Mentioned	Mapped	Managed
Team capability	Solo inventor	Gaps unknown	Gaps acknowledged	Redundancy built

Beware dependence on a single inventor. Reward realism over ambition. Execution matters more than vision.

Funding & Resource Alignment

How much capital is required, what milestone will it buy, and are resources and capital needs efficient?

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Funding & Resource Alignment
Score	Descriptor
0	No funding logic
1	Vague estimate
2	Rough budget
3	Milestone-linked
4	Capital-efficient
5	Fundable
6	Sustainable

Wide tables scroll horizontally.

Historical Funding & Resource Alignment criteria
Criterion	0–1	2–3	4–5	6
Capital need	Unknown	Estimated	Justified	Optimized
Use of funds	Undefined	Listed	Milestone-based	ROI-driven
Resource access	None	Hypothesized	Secured	Redundant

Penalize premature scale. Reward milestone discipline. Capital efficiency matters more than capital size.