Scoring rubric

Every initiative is scored on five weighted axes: Speed-to-Contract (25%), Strategic Moat (20%), Defensibility (20%), Capital Access (20%), and Russian/CIS Fit (15%). A weighted total of 7.5 or more puts an initiative in Tier-A — deal-ready with every reference field verified. Below 6.0 is Tier-C or worse.

The five axes

Tier mapping

Why these weights?

Speed-to-Contract is weighted highest because in B2G the largest losses come from chasing slow opportunities. Russian/CIS Fit is weighted lowest because it is necessary but not sufficient — a poor fit kills a deal but a good fit alone does not win one. The other three axes are weighted equally because they trade off against one another in real bid decisions.

Detailed axis definitions

Every initiative is scored 1–10 on five axes, then weighted-summed for ranking. Default weights are below; override via weights.json.

Default weights

weighted_total = 0.25*speed + 0.20*moat + 0.20*defensibility + 0.20*capital + 0.15*russian_cis_fit

Axis 1: Speed-to-Contract (1–10)

How fast can this initiative produce billable revenue?

• 10: Live RFP exists, submission window open, your offer is competitive, decision within 90 days
• 9: RFP imminent (next 60 days), pre-qualification possible
• 8: Decree implementation deadline within 6 months, budget allocated, procurement designer is reachable
• 7: Donor program disbursement schedule active in next 6 months, government counterpart identified
• 6: 6–12 month window, named decision-maker, no live RFP yet
• 5: 12–18 month window, decree in active phase, budget pathway clear
• 4: 18–24 month window, requires policy advocacy
• 3: Multi-year horizon, requires market education
• 2: Speculative, dependent on next political cycle
• 1: No clear pathway, theoretical

Verifiers: live tender URL, decree implementation deadline date, donor disbursement schedule

Axis 2: Strategic Moat (1–10)

How protected is this opportunity from competition?

• 10: Presidential decree explicitly priorities the use case, named in Uzbekistan-2030 / Digital KG strategy, ≤2 incumbents, your capability is uniquely positioned
• 9: Top-3 government KPI, low foreign vendor presence
• 8: Sectoral priority, 2–3 incumbents but you have differentiated positioning
• 7: Visible government priority, moderate competition
• 6: Standard market opportunity with some defensible angle
• 5: Competitive market, win on execution
• 4: Highly competitive, commodity-style
• 3: Crowded with global incumbents
• 2: Saturated market, marginal differentiation
• 1: No moat, race to the bottom

Verifiers: presence in Uzbekistan-2030 or Digital Kyrgyzstan strategies, count of vendor incumbents in segment, presidential mention frequency

Axis 3: Defensibility (1–10)

Once you win, how hard is it to be displaced?

• 10: Multi-year SLA structure standard, data ownership clause achievable, network effects activate, switching cost is enormous (citizen-facing platform with adoption lock-in)
• 9: 3+ year contracts standard, data lock-in, integration depth
• 8: Multi-year structure, moderate switching cost
• 7: Annual renewal but high incumbency advantage
• 6: Standard renewal patterns, some lock-in
• 5: Annual renewal, modest stickiness
• 4: Project-based, no recurring component
• 3: One-shot deliverable, no incumbency advantage
• 2: Hardware/commodity, easily replaced
• 1: Pure transactional, no relationship moat

Verifiers: contract length norms in segment, data ownership clause negotiability, integration depth required, regulatory capture potential (e.g., becoming the standard the regulator references)

Axis 4: Capital Access (1–10)

How well-funded is this opportunity from non-state-budget sources?

• 10: Active donor program co-financing > $5M, TTL/PM identified and reachable, disbursement schedule includes the relevant tender window
• 9: Active donor program $1–5M, named PM
• 8: Pipeline donor program in appraisal, expected award in 12 months
• 7: Multi-donor convergence (e.g., WB + EU on same problem)
• 6: State budget line confirmed, no donor co-financing but stable funding
• 5: State budget line probable, awaiting next budget cycle
• 4: Aspirational state allocation, no donor backing
• 3: PPP-only pathway, requires capital from your side
• 2: Revenue-share only, slow ramp
• 1: No clear funding pathway

Verifiers: World Bank Documents portal, ADB project database, EU NDICI plan, disbursement reports

Axis 5: Russian/CIS Delivery Fit (1–10)

How well does this match your sntz.ai infrastructure and Russian-language distribution muscle?

• 10: Russian-language UX mandatory/preferred, data localization required (CIS-friendly cloud beneficial), buyer wants non-Western non-sanctions-exposed vendor, payment rails compatible (MIR/SBP/Paddle), use case maps to your existing platform capabilities (image/video/text generation, agentic workflows)
• 9: Russian-language strongly preferred, your stack is direct fit
• 8: Multi-language but Russian is primary working language
• 7: Local language (Uzbek/Kyrgyz) primary but your team can deliver via partners
• 6: English/local mix, your stack adapts
• 5: Multi-language with no strong Russian/CIS preference
• 4: Local-language-only mandate, your stack needs heavy localization
• 3: Western-vendor-preferred segment (e.g., banking core systems with regulatory pressure for Western brand)
• 2: Active US/EU vendor preference, geopolitically sensitive
• 1: Anti-Russian-vendor sentiment in segment, your positioning is liability

Verifiers: language requirements in past tenders, data localization rules, sanctioned-vendor exclusions, payment rail requirements

Confidence Tier Mapping

After scoring, initiatives are bucketed into tiers based on weighted_total AND verification quality:

• Tier A (weighted_total >= 7.5 AND all key fields VERIFIED): go now, deal-ready
• Tier B (weighted_total >= 6.0 AND most fields VERIFIED or L2_VERIFIED): develop, missing one piece
• Tier C (weighted_total >= 4.5): backlog, requires more research
• Tier D (weighted_total < 4.5 OR significant UNVERIFIED gaps): reconsider or drop

The CRM exports Tier A and B by default. Tiers C and D are available in the full knowledge graph for periodic re-evaluation.

Slice views (CRM rendering)

The render pipeline produces these views by sorting on a single axis:

• top_speed.csv — sorted by speed-to-contract DESC
• top_moat.csv — sorted by strategic_moat DESC
• top_defensibility.csv — sorted by defensibility DESC
• top_capital.csv — sorted by capital_access DESC
• top_russian_cis.csv — sorted by russian_cis_fit DESC
• top_overall.csv — sorted by weighted_total DESC
• convergent_windows.csv — initiatives scoring ≥7 on at least 4 axes

The convergent_windows view is the most strategically valuable: opportunities where multiple lenses align simultaneously.

@misc{valuev26cab2g,
  author = {Valuev, Alexandr},
  title  = {Central Asia B2G Intelligence: Five-axis scoring rubric for B2G initiatives},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://avaluev.github.io/ca-b2g-research/scoring/},
  note   = {Data vintage 2026-05, Apache 2.0}
}