Writing
The Scoring Model Was Wrong And It Put The Worst Lead First
A weighted sum let one axis substitute for the other, so a company with money and no problem ranked in the top twenty.
Writing
A weighted sum let one axis substitute for the other, so a company with money and no problem ranked in the top twenty.
Notes
Most companies are not short of information. They are short of an interpretation layer, and the interpretation layer is where the mistakes hide.
We built one this month and it failed in a way worth describing, because it failed quietly and it looked correct while it failed.
We had 2,163 companies in one US sector and needed to know which ones to approach first. Two axes matter: can they pay, and do they have a problem worth paying to fix. We measured both from public signals. Domain age, sitemap presence, last publication date, mail provider, registry filings, site condition.
Coverage was uneven and we recorded that rather than smoothing it over. Mail provider resolved for 95 percent of them. Domain age resolved for 24 percent. Sitemap data existed for 12 percent.
The 24 percent figure bothered me, so I sampled it. Of five companies marked unmeasurable, four had archives going back more than a decade. One went back twenty two years. The data existed. We had run eight parallel workers at the archive and been throttled, then recorded the throttling as absence.
We reran it with two workers and waiting periods. Coverage went from 24 percent to 88 percent. My time estimate for that rerun was fifteen minutes. It took 179.
The lesson is not about workers. Not measured and does not exist are two different findings, and a pipeline that collapses them will report confident nonsense.
I scored the companies with a weighted sum. Ability to pay, plus severity of problem, plus supporting signals.
The top of the list came back with a company scoring 100 on ability to pay and 3 on severity of problem. It ranked in the top twenty. A business with money and no problem had been placed at the front of a sales list, because a high score on one axis carried a near zero on the other.
A sum lets one axis substitute for the other. That is exactly wrong here, since both have to be present or there is nothing to sell. Changing the core to the square root of the product fixed it. The same company dropped to 40 points and position 119.
Almost nobody in this sector publishes anything. That is the finding, and it only became visible after the measurement layer stopped lying to us twice.
An intelligence layer is not a dashboard. It is a set of claims about reality, and each claim can be wrong in two directions: the data can be missing, or the maths on top of it can be shaped so that a missing value looks like a good one.
Both failures here were mine, both looked like working software, and neither would have surfaced without going back and sampling the rows the system had already given up on.
More