# Turn 002 — Scoring Summary

**Status:** GM-only analysis; no fictional outcome approved

The score order is Direction, Focus, Orchestration, Grounding, Mobilization, Adaptability. Power uses:

`0.65 × mean(score / 5) + 0.35 × minimum(score / 5)`

| Player | Profile | Power | Band | Target |
|---|---|---:|---|---:|
| player1 / Ridgeford | 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5 | 0.908 | Strong | 0.764 |
| player2 / Hazelstead | 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5 | 0.908 | Strong | 0.764 |
| player3 / Claybank | 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 | 1.000 | Exceptional | 0.850 |
| player4 / Merehaven | 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 | 1.000 | Exceptional | 0.850 |

The target is a calibration point inside the separately established causal range, not a success probability. The ordinary uncertainty window is ±0.10.

## Evidence and defect review

- player1’s Focus remains Strong rather than Exceptional because the route, rebuild plan, external compact, and responsibility inquiry all need leader/witness attention in one month, despite clear sequencing.
- player2’s Focus remains Strong rather than Exceptional because planting, drainage, care, reduced hunting, a boundary hearing, and conditional contact span several work fronts, even though the plan protects the food critical path.
- player3’s six Exceptional scores survive a failure-mode review: the plan explicitly defers production and rebuilding, protects fields and injuries, separates five domain authorities, and uses one reversible trial plus one bounded exchange.
- player4’s six Exceptional scores survive a failure-mode review: fuel is the explicit critical path, every expansion is gated, household ownership and safety authority remain intact, and contact occurs only after local capacity work.

No score rewards length, prose polish, task ease, or desired outcome. No two-point scoring ambiguity or score-5 disqualifier was identified in the evidence-first and failure-mode reviews.