Methodology
How the CBRC Use Case Score is calculated
TrustCBRC turns real-world blockchain use cases into a verifiable 0–100 score — AI assessed, expert validated, and certified onchain. This page shows how the score is constructed, so enterprise buyers, auditors and regulators can see what drives the number.
01
6 evaluation categories
Every use case is assessed across 6 categories, each represented by targeted questions about blockchain fit.
- 01
Data Integrity and Security
Need for a single, immutable source of truth, strong protection of personal data, and data held across many nodes rather than one central database.
- 02
Trust and Verification
Need for transparent transactions that every participant can verify, and for removing intermediaries and third-party validation.
- 03
Efficiency and Scalability
Value from automating processes with smart contracts, handling high transaction volumes, and scaling to more users over time.
- 04
Information Sharing and Collaboration
Importance of real-time access to the same data for several parties, removing data silos, and sharing beyond the organisation.
- 05
Compliance and Regulation
Importance of immutable records that are readily available for audit, especially by regulators.
- 06
Adoption Feasibility
Likelihood that users, partners and customers will adopt the solution, and the scale of change it brings to existing systems.
These 6 categories are assessed through 14 specific questions about the use case.
02
6 AI evaluator personas
Each question is scored by a committee of 6 AI evaluator personas, each representing a distinct domain. Every persona scores every question, but their influence varies by topic.
Industry Expert
Operational and market realities of enterprise deployments
Critical Technology Ethicist
Ethical, societal and user-impact implications
Regulatory Compliance
Legal, audit and data-protection requirements
Economic Viability
Business model, cost/benefit and ROI
Technical Architecture
Blockchain design, scalability, security and integration
Academic Expert
Theoretical foundations and evidence from research
03
Expertise-based weighting, per question
For each of the 14 questions, the 6 persona scores are combined using an expertise-based weighting matrix. The result for each question is a weighted average, not a simple mean.
- 0.3 – 2.0The weight scale, from minimal relevance to maximum expertise. Weights reflect how relevant each domain is to that specific question.
- No zeroesAll 6 personas always contribute. No perspective is ever switched off, whatever the question.
- Capped at 2.0No single evaluator can dominate a question, however central it is to their domain.
On auditability, the Regulatory Compliance persona carries the highest weight, 2.0, because audit and regulatory compliance are its core domain. On user adoption, the Industry Expert carries 1.8, reflecting deep market adoption experience. On decentralised storage and scalability, the Technical Architecture persona carries the highest weights.
04
From 14 questions to a 0–100 score
- 1
Question-level scoring
Each persona scores every question from 1 to 5, from what the project submitted. The system applies the question-specific weight vector and computes a weighted average.
- 2
Interview
CBRC's team interviews the project team by video call. The agenda is drawn from the first scores, focusing on the questions where the evidence was thinnest or the evaluators disagreed most. The interview is a required part of every assessment.
- 3
Re-evaluation
With the interview transcript added, the evaluators score all 14 questions again. Each also closes with its overall view on whether blockchain is the right technology for the use case. That view is not scored. CBRC's reviewers read it beside the scores, and it informs the text drafted for the project's register page, which they review before it is published.
- 4
Category view
The 14 weighted question scores are grouped into the 6 evaluation categories, so each category shows blockchain fit across its own set of questions.
- 5
Overall score and CBRC's decision
The overall score is the average of the 14 weighted question scores, converted to a 0–100 scale and rounded to a whole number. CBRC's analyst makes the final decision and can adjust an individual question's score, with the reason recorded; the categories and the overall score are then recalculated. Only the approved score is certified onchain.
05
A worked example: auditability
“How important is it for the records to be immutable and readily available for auditing by external parties, especially regulatory authorities?”
| Evaluator | Score | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | 4 | 1.1 |
| Tech Ethicist | 3 | 1.2 |
| Regulatory | 5 | 2.0 |
| Economic | 3 | 1.0 |
| Technical | 4 | 0.9 |
| Academic | 3 | 0.8 |
Pulled upward by the Regulatory expert’s score of 5 multiplied by the highest weight in the matrix. Auditability is primarily a compliance concern, and the weighting says so. The cap at 2.0 is what stops it becoming a veto.
06
Why this matters
Transparency
A clear view of what is being measured, and why.
Expert alignment
Scores reflect domain expertise, not a one-size-fits-all average.
Human oversight
CBRC's analyst makes the final decision on every score before certification.
Onchain verifiability
The final score is immutably recorded where anyone can check it.
Questions
- How is this different from a simple average?
- A simple average would treat all six personas equally on every question. The CBRC methodology adjusts influence by expertise, so the most relevant domain experts have more say on each question; prevents domain mismatch, so technical architecture does not dominate compliance questions or the reverse; and preserves diverse input, because all six perspectives still contribute. The result is a more defensible measure of blockchain fit than an unweighted average.
- Is the methodology public?
- The high-level methodology is public — this page. We disclose the evaluation categories and their intent, the evaluator personas and their domains, and the weighting principles with illustrative examples. For procurement, audit or regulatory purposes, we can share a detailed methodology pack, including the full weight matrix, under NDA.
- How is the score stored and verified?
- Once approved, the CBRC Use Case Score and its metadata are certified as a timestamp transaction onchain. That provides an immutable record of the score and the assessment date, a verifiable reference any party can check for themselves, and protection against the score being modified after the fact.
- Can I use the CBRC Score in RFPs, audits or regulatory filings?
- Yes. It is designed to be used as an objective, third-party assessment of blockchain fit in RFPs and procurement; as supporting evidence in internal audits or risk assessments; and as part of regulatory or compliance documentation where an independent evaluation of technology fit is helpful.
See it applied
Every scored entry in the register carries its CBRC Use Case Score and the assessor’s written rationale.
Explore the register