TAM Score: Evaluate Movement Leader Candidates
Apply the full Movemental evaluation rubric to one or more candidates, producing scored profiles and tier assignments.
Invocation
/tam-score $ARGUMENTS
Arguments:
- One or more candidate names. Examples:
/tam-score Mark Sayers — score a single candidate/tam-score all unscored — score all candidates in the UNSCORED section/tam-score rescore 50-75 — rescore candidates ranked 50-75
Before Starting
- Read the rubric at
intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/03-RUBRIC.md — this is the scoring authority
- Read existing profiles at
intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md — for format and benchmarks
- Read the master list at
intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/01-MASTER-RANKED-LIST.md — for current rankings
- Note the benchmarks: Alan Hirsch = 100/100, Brad Brisco = 88/100, Michael Frost = 94/100
Phase 1: Research the Candidate
For each candidate being scored, gather data via web search:
| Data Point |
Sources to Check |
| Published books |
Amazon, Goodreads, publisher sites |
| Current role/affiliations |
Personal website, LinkedIn, org sites |
| Audience size |
Twitter/X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, newsletter |
| Speaking/conferences |
Conference sites, event listings |
| Education/training |
Seminary affiliations, academic posts |
| Co-authors/endorsers |
Book pages, blurbs, co-publications |
| Courses/training programs |
Personal site, org platforms |
| Revenue signals |
Book sales rank, course pricing, speaking fees, consulting |
| Movement evidence |
Orgs founded, networks catalyzed, practitioners multiplied |
| Theological depth |
Book content, published articles, teaching |
Phase 2: Seven Gates Assessment
Evaluate each gate with a verdict and 1-2 sentence evidence:
### Seven Gates Assessment
| Gate | Verdict | Evidence |
|------|---------|----------|
| 1. Embodied Practice (10+ years) | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 2. Multiplication Evidence | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 3. Movement Over Institution | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 4. Prophetic Edge | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 5. Credibility Through Suffering | PASS/N/A | [evidence or "not assessed"] |
| 6. Theological Depth | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 7. Network Coherence (Scenius Test) | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
If a candidate FAILS any gate (except Gate 5): Flag them as "Does Not Pass Gates" with an explanation. Do not proceed to quantitative scoring unless the failure is borderline and worth discussion.
Phase 3: 100-Point Quantitative Scoring
Apply the rubric exactly as defined in 03-RUBRIC.md:
### Scoring Breakdown
| Category | Score |
|----------|-------|
| 1A: Theological Foundation (15) | /15 |
| 1B: Movement Practice Integration (10) | /10 |
| 2A: Current Audience Size (10) | /10 |
| 2B: Audience Quality & Engagement (10) | /10 |
| 3A: Content Quality & Depth (12) | /12 |
| 3B: Content Consistency & Platform Readiness (8) | /8 |
| 4A: Current Revenue Streams (8) | /8 |
| 4B: Platform Business Model Alignment (7) | /7 |
| 5A: Existing Network Connections (6) | /6 |
| 5B: Collaboration History & Referral Potential (4) | /4 |
| 6A: Leadership Development & Mentoring (6) | /6 |
| 6B: Community Building & Platform Ownership Mindset (4) | /4 |
| **Subtotal** | **/100** |
| Bonus: Underrepresented demographic | +0-5 |
| Bonus: Emerging voice (<40, <10 yrs) | +0-3 |
| Bonus: Geographic diversity | +0-2 |
| Bonus: Gender diversity | +0-1 |
| **TOTAL** | **/100+bonus** |
For each sub-score, provide a 1-sentence justification.
Phase 4: Tier Assignment
| Tier |
Score Range |
Priority |
Action |
| Flagship |
90-100 |
IMMEDIATE |
Maximum investment, founding cohort |
| Proven |
75-89 |
HIGH |
Standard platform development |
| Emerging |
60-74 |
SELECTIVE |
Targeted support, mentoring |
| Pipeline |
45-59 |
DEVELOPMENT |
Growth focus, future potential |
| Below 45 |
<45 |
NOT READY |
Monitor only |
Phase 5: Write the Profile
Append the full profile to intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md using this format:
## #[rank] [Full Name] - [score]/100
**Domain**: [primary domain]
**Affiliations**: [key orgs]
**Notable Works**: [books, frameworks]
**Audience**: [size estimate]
**Seven Gates**: [PASS ALL / FAIL: Gate X]
**Scoring Breakdown**:
| Category | Score |
|----------|-------|
| [full breakdown] |
**Notes**: [key observations, network value, risks, unique contributions]
Update the master list ranking in 01-MASTER-RANKED-LIST.md — insert at the correct position by score.
Phase 6: Comparative Notes
After scoring, provide:
- How this candidate compares to the nearest-scored existing candidates
- Unique contribution they would bring to the scenius
- Risk factors (potential for dilution, controversy, misalignment)
- Recommended next action (profile, reflected understanding, outreach)
Key Rules
- Use only live-sourced data. Every score must be backed by verifiable information from web search.
- Apply the rubric exactly — do not invent new criteria or modify point ranges.
- Benchmark against Hirsch (100), Frost (94), Brisco (88) — these are the calibration points. A score of 90+ should genuinely rival these leaders' profiles.
- Be honest about gaps. If data is unavailable for a scoring category, score conservatively and note "insufficient data" rather than guessing high.
- The Scenius Test (Gate 7) is critical. A high-scoring candidate who would dilute network coherence should be flagged, not just scored.
- Never inflate scores to fill quota. A smaller, higher-quality TAM is better than a padded list.
- Preserve all existing profiles — append new ones, never overwrite.
1---2name: tam-score3description: Score and rank movement leader candidates using the Seven Gates and 100-point Movemental rubric4---56# TAM Score: Evaluate Movement Leader Candidates78Apply the full Movemental evaluation rubric to one or more candidates, producing scored profiles and tier assignments.910## Invocation1112```13/tam-score $ARGUMENTS14```1516**Arguments:**17- One or more candidate names. Examples:18 - `/tam-score Mark Sayers` — score a single candidate19 - `/tam-score all unscored` — score all candidates in the UNSCORED section20 - `/tam-score rescore 50-75` — rescore candidates ranked 50-752122---2324## Before Starting25261. **Read the rubric** at `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/03-RUBRIC.md` — this is the scoring authority272. **Read existing profiles** at `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md` — for format and benchmarks283. **Read the master list** at `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/01-MASTER-RANKED-LIST.md` — for current rankings294. **Note the benchmarks**: Alan Hirsch = 100/100, Brad Brisco = 88/100, Michael Frost = 94/1003031---3233## Phase 1: Research the Candidate3435For each candidate being scored, gather data via web search:3637| Data Point | Sources to Check |38|------------|-----------------|39| Published books | Amazon, Goodreads, publisher sites |40| Current role/affiliations | Personal website, LinkedIn, org sites |41| Audience size | Twitter/X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, newsletter |42| Speaking/conferences | Conference sites, event listings |43| Education/training | Seminary affiliations, academic posts |44| Co-authors/endorsers | Book pages, blurbs, co-publications |45| Courses/training programs | Personal site, org platforms |46| Revenue signals | Book sales rank, course pricing, speaking fees, consulting |47| Movement evidence | Orgs founded, networks catalyzed, practitioners multiplied |48| Theological depth | Book content, published articles, teaching |4950---5152## Phase 2: Seven Gates Assessment5354Evaluate each gate with a verdict and 1-2 sentence evidence:5556```markdown57### Seven Gates Assessment5859| Gate | Verdict | Evidence |60|------|---------|----------|61| 1. Embodied Practice (10+ years) | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |62| 2. Multiplication Evidence | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |63| 3. Movement Over Institution | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |64| 4. Prophetic Edge | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |65| 5. Credibility Through Suffering | PASS/N/A | [evidence or "not assessed"] |66| 6. Theological Depth | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |67| 7. Network Coherence (Scenius Test) | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |68```6970**If a candidate FAILS any gate (except Gate 5):** Flag them as "Does Not Pass Gates" with an explanation. Do not proceed to quantitative scoring unless the failure is borderline and worth discussion.7172---7374## Phase 3: 100-Point Quantitative Scoring7576Apply the rubric exactly as defined in `03-RUBRIC.md`:7778```markdown79### Scoring Breakdown8081| Category | Score |82|----------|-------|83| 1A: Theological Foundation (15) | /15 |84| 1B: Movement Practice Integration (10) | /10 |85| 2A: Current Audience Size (10) | /10 |86| 2B: Audience Quality & Engagement (10) | /10 |87| 3A: Content Quality & Depth (12) | /12 |88| 3B: Content Consistency & Platform Readiness (8) | /8 |89| 4A: Current Revenue Streams (8) | /8 |90| 4B: Platform Business Model Alignment (7) | /7 |91| 5A: Existing Network Connections (6) | /6 |92| 5B: Collaboration History & Referral Potential (4) | /4 |93| 6A: Leadership Development & Mentoring (6) | /6 |94| 6B: Community Building & Platform Ownership Mindset (4) | /4 |95| **Subtotal** | **/100** |96| Bonus: Underrepresented demographic | +0-5 |97| Bonus: Emerging voice (<40, <10 yrs) | +0-3 |98| Bonus: Geographic diversity | +0-2 |99| Bonus: Gender diversity | +0-1 |100| **TOTAL** | **/100+bonus** |101```102103For each sub-score, provide a 1-sentence justification.104105---106107## Phase 4: Tier Assignment108109| Tier | Score Range | Priority | Action |110|------|-------------|----------|--------|111| Flagship | 90-100 | IMMEDIATE | Maximum investment, founding cohort |112| Proven | 75-89 | HIGH | Standard platform development |113| Emerging | 60-74 | SELECTIVE | Targeted support, mentoring |114| Pipeline | 45-59 | DEVELOPMENT | Growth focus, future potential |115| Below 45 | <45 | NOT READY | Monitor only |116117---118119## Phase 5: Write the Profile120121Append the full profile to `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md` using this format:122123```markdown124## #[rank] [Full Name] - [score]/100125126**Domain**: [primary domain]127**Affiliations**: [key orgs]128**Notable Works**: [books, frameworks]129**Audience**: [size estimate]130131**Seven Gates**: [PASS ALL / FAIL: Gate X]132133**Scoring Breakdown**:134| Category | Score |135|----------|-------|136| [full breakdown] |137138**Notes**: [key observations, network value, risks, unique contributions]139```140141Update the master list ranking in `01-MASTER-RANKED-LIST.md` — insert at the correct position by score.142143---144145## Phase 6: Comparative Notes146147After scoring, provide:1481491. **How this candidate compares** to the nearest-scored existing candidates1502. **Unique contribution** they would bring to the scenius1513. **Risk factors** (potential for dilution, controversy, misalignment)1524. **Recommended next action** (profile, reflected understanding, outreach)153154---155156## Key Rules1571581. **Use only live-sourced data.** Every score must be backed by verifiable information from web search.1592. **Apply the rubric exactly** — do not invent new criteria or modify point ranges.1603. **Benchmark against Hirsch (100), Frost (94), Brisco (88)** — these are the calibration points. A score of 90+ should genuinely rival these leaders' profiles.1614. **Be honest about gaps.** If data is unavailable for a scoring category, score conservatively and note "insufficient data" rather than guessing high.1625. **The Scenius Test (Gate 7) is critical.** A high-scoring candidate who would dilute network coherence should be flagged, not just scored.1636. **Never inflate scores** to fill quota. A smaller, higher-quality TAM is better than a padded list.1647. **Preserve all existing profiles** — append new ones, never overwrite.
JoshuaShepherd