# Evaluation Framework

Use weights tailored to the brief. Do not hide a fatal problem behind a high average score.

| Dimension | Question |
|---|---|
| Strategic fit | Does the name support the intended position and audience response? |
| Distinctiveness | Is it meaningfully different from category and competitor naming patterns? |
| Memorability | Can people retain and retrieve it after limited exposure? |
| Sound | Does pronunciation match the desired character and work aloud? |
| Spelling | Can listeners find, type, and share it reliably? |
| Meaning | Are literal, associative, historical, and brand-created meanings honest and useful? |
| Emotional residue | What feeling remains after hearing it? |
| Stretch | Can it support future products, markets, and portfolio architecture? |
| Cultural robustness | Are material language, slang, pronunciation, and association risks acceptable? |
| Digital usability | Can it function in search, domains, handles, app listings, email, and voice interfaces? |
| Preliminary ownability | How crowded and confusing is the relevant commercial field? |

## Hard gates

Define before scoring, for example:

- no close relevant commercial conflict found in preliminary research;
- pronounceable in the required languages;
- no material negative meaning in target markets;
- does not violate rejected patterns;
- works without a descriptor if required;
- fits the intended portfolio architecture.

## Context tests

Insert the candidate into realistic language:

- “I use ___ to …”
- “We chose ___ because …”
- “Welcome to ___.”
- “___ Enterprise / ___ Studio / ___ for [audience]” when relevant;
- spoken introduction followed by a spelling check;
- search result, app icon, invoice, job advert, support email, and press headline.

## Decision output

For each finalist report:

- score or judgment by dimension;
- hard-gate result;
- strongest advantage;
- most serious weakness;
- confidence and missing evidence;
- recommended next experiment or clearance action.