Documentation / QueryTek Review glossary / Rubric
A rubric breaks a standard into named dimensions with described levels, so a reviewer's judgement lands on defined criteria instead of an overall impression. It is the instrument that lets two qualified reviewers assess the same material and reach comparable conclusions, and it is what makes an outcome explainable.
A rubric has two parts, and both are necessary. Dimensions name what is being assessed — accuracy, clarity, completeness, tone, accessibility. Level descriptions state what each dimension looks like at each level, in observable terms.
The level descriptions do the real work. "Clarity: 3 out of 5" carries almost no information; "Clarity: a non-specialist reader can determine the required action without re-reading" is something two reviewers can agree on. A rubric with dimensions but vague levels produces numbers that look objective and are not.
Three design properties separate a usable rubric from a decorative one.
Dimensions are independent. Overlapping dimensions cause a single flaw to be penalised repeatedly, distorting the outcome. If two dimensions always move together, they are one dimension.
Levels are observable. A reviewer should be able to point at the text supporting a level. Criteria requiring inference about intent cannot be applied consistently.
Coverage is bounded. A rubric capturing everything is too slow to apply and encourages skimming. Covering what matters beats completeness.
The rubric derives from the standards profile: the profile states the standard, the rubric operationalises it. That direction matters, because a rubric written first tends to encode what is easy to assess rather than what the engagement requires.
Rubrics are also living artefacts. Repeated adjudication on the same kind of case is evidence that a dimension is ambiguous, and revising it is a normal maintenance activity rather than an admission of error.
Without a rubric, review quality varies with the reviewer, and there is no way to tell whether an outcome reflects the material or the person assessing it. Consistency is not a matter of hiring well; it requires shared criteria.
A rubric also makes an outcome explainable. When a client asks why material was returned, the answer cites a dimension and a level rather than a professional impression.
QueryTek Review applies engagement rubrics derived from the standards profile, so reviewer findings map to named dimensions and outcomes can be explained by criterion. Rubric contents are engagement artefacts rather than public documentation.
