Rubric
Five dimensions, scored 1.0 to 5.0 to one decimal place. Weights are reviewed each quarter. Scores are not comparable across quarters without the weights that produced them.
Structural Integrity
Current weight 0.15
Whether the stack holds its shape under normal use. The test is a full cut through every layer with the side of a fork, followed by a lift. A stack that separates along a seam, sags at the unsupported edge, or requires a second point of support scores below 3.0.
This dimension is deliberately mechanical. It does not consider whether the stack is pleasant, only whether it survives being eaten in the way people actually eat.
Absorbency
Current weight 0.15
How much syrup, butter or fat the crumb takes up and holds within itself. Measured by cutting the stack open at the end of the sitting and looking at the interior. A saturated interior scores high. A dry interior scores low regardless of how much syrup was applied.
Absorbency is regularly confused with syrup retention. They are separate dimensions and a stack can score well on one and badly on the other.
Syrup Retention
Current weight 0.25
How much of the applied syrup stays on or in the stack rather than reaching the plate. Assessed by looking at the plate. A clean plate at the end of the sitting is a high score.
Retention rewards surface structure and closed edges. Absorbency rewards an open crumb. A stack optimising hard for one tends to cost itself the other, which is intentional.
Rise
Current weight 0.10
Vertical height achieved per layer, measured at the centre with a ruler before the first cut, and again after the stack has been pressed. Recovery after pressing is scored within this dimension rather than separately.
Preparations that do not attempt rise are scored on the same scale as those that do. This has been raised as an objection and is discussed on the calibration page.
Cross Functional Pairing
Current weight 0.35
How the stack performs alongside other components of the plate. Butter, syrup, fruit, bacon, egg and coffee are all in scope. The question is whether the plate is better for the stack being on it.
This is the only dimension that assesses the stack in relation to something other than itself, which is why its weight has increased in each of the last two revisions.
Why there are five
Five is the number a reader can hold in working memory while reading a review. A sixth dimension has been proposed twice, once for temperature at service and once for aroma. Both were rejected on the grounds that the marginal signal did not justify the cost to the reader, and that a dimension nobody remembers is a dimension that gets ignored in calibration.
Weight revision history
Weights by quarter. Each row sums to 1.00. Revisions apply from the quarter they are recorded against and are not applied retroactively.
| Quarter | Structural Integrity | Absorbency | Syrup Retention | Rise | Cross Functional Pairing | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-Q1 | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 1.00 |
| 2026-Q2 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 1.00 |
| 2026-Q3 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.35 | 1.00 |
2026-Q1. Baseline rubric.
2026-Q2. Rubric recalibrated to better reflect business priorities.
2026-Q3. Increased emphasis on cross functional pairing following stakeholder feedback.
The effect of the two revisions above is that a stack can record identical or improved dimension scores across three quarters and still record a falling composite. Two stacks in the current cohort have done exactly that. Their reviews say so, and the trajectory tables on their pages show the dimension scores alongside the composite so the movement can be checked rather than taken on trust.
The alternative, holding the weights fixed, was considered. It was rejected because the weights encode what the review programme currently cares about, and that has changed. Freezing the rubric would produce comparable numbers that measure the wrong thing.