How well do Unum11 reports actually score?

Six companies, from a local restaurant to a $3.9B contractor, graded on the same 1000-point rubric across 9 categories. The best scored 887; the median is 848. Every score below is reproducible from the delivered report.html, and the whole set is available as machine-readable JSON.

Companies graded
6
Best score
887
Median score
848
Words written
35,237
Outbound citations
245
Measured

Full results by company

One row per company, best run. Several companies have been run more than once; repeat runs land within a few points and are excluded so the row count is not inflated with dependent observations.
Company Entity scale Score Words Sections Citations Graded
Digerati Technologies, Inc. Small-cap public 887 8,176 9 29
KORU Medical Systems, Inc. Small-cap public 886 6,630 14 82
Xenetic Biosciences, Inc. Small-cap public 849 3,969 13 9
Edible Garden AG Inc Small-cap public 846 9,367 19 71
Granite Construction Incorporated Global enterprise 817 4,296 13 17
Peppers Cantina Local SMB 750 2,799 15 37

Per-category scores

The rubric splits into a 584-point floor awarded for having no detectable defect and 416 earned points that start at zero. A flawless report demonstrating nothing scores 584, not 1000.

Points per category. Column headers are the rubric's own category letters.
Company ABCDEFGHI Total
Digerati Technologies, Inc. 171 95 128 123 127 68 61 38 76 887
KORU Medical Systems, Inc. 191 95 143 103 111 68 61 38 76 886
Xenetic Biosciences, Inc. 171 85 143 103 111 68 61 31 76 849
Edible Garden AG Inc 171 95 143 103 111 55 61 31 76 846
Granite Construction Incorporated 171 85 143 103 95 68 45 31 76 817
Peppers Cantina 175 95 127 123 20 82 30 31 67 750
Maximum 1919514314314395763876 1000

What the numbers say, including the unflattering part

Recommendations are the weakest category, by a wide margin

Category E ranges from 127/143 down to 20/143. The floor case is the local restaurant, where the pipeline researched well (F: 82/95, the highest in the set) and then had almost nothing prescriptive to say. Research quality and recommendation quality are not the same capability, and this benchmark shows the gap rather than averaging it away.

Report length does not predict score

The 849-point Xenetic report is 3,969 words with 9 citations. The 846-point Edible Garden report is 9,367 words with 71 citations — more than twice as long, eight times the sources, three points lower. Length is what a thin public record does not force, and the rubric is largely indifferent to it.

Entity scale held across a 1,000× size range

Category B stayed at 85–95 out of 95 from a single-location restaurant to a $3.9B national contractor. Wrong-scale advice is one of the six zero-tolerance rules, so this is the category most likely to veto a report outright, and it did not.

Nobody has scored full marks on the same category twice

KORU took 191/191 on zero-fabrication and 143/143 on financial rigour; no other run matched either. Digerati leads on recommendations at 127/143 and gives up 15 points on financial rigour to do it. The ceiling is real, and no single run is near it everywhere.

How to read these numbers

This benchmark is self-administered. The rubric was written by Unum11 and run against Unum11's own output. The honest framing for anyone citing it is "Unum11's own benchmark". A real McKinsey Global Institute report scores 409/1000 on this same rubric with 3 categories at zero — a measurement of our house bias, not a verdict on McKinsey.

Companies named above are public companies analysed from public filings, or a local business analysed from public reviews. None is a Unum11 client; nothing here was produced for or reviewed by them. Scores are reproducible by running grade_report() against the report.html in each run directory. Dataset published under CC BY 4.0 — quote it, with attribution. See also what a report contains and the stated limitations.