Summary: When preparing supporting materials for candidates for talent titles on behalf of an organization, the value of the eight-dimensional scoring table lies not in the total score but in three structural pieces of information: strength dimensions, weakness dimensions, and data credibility. This article explains how to read it one by one.
1. First, See Clearly "Where the Scores Come From"
The eight-dimensional scoring of the MuchSci talent profile has eight dimensions, fixed criteria, and non-adjustable weights:
Among them, Main Research Achievements (weight 20) and Representative Works (weight 15) account for the largest share. This means that the baseline of a candidate's score is determined by their hard outcomes—exactly what title review values most.
2. Strength Dimensions: Find "Highlights Supported by Details"
For the top-scoring dimensions, drill down one by one to view the details. If Main Research Achievements is high, which verified projects are behind it? If Representative Works scores high, which specific outputs are they? Only strengths that can be traced to the granularity of "approval number, year, and undertaking institution" count as hard highlights when written into supporting materials.
3. Weakness Dimensions: Presenting Them Truthfully Is More Useful Than Rhetoric
Weak dimensions should also be read. For example, a relatively weak works dimension or academic social dimension—the value of this information to the organization lies in this: writing a "plan to address shortcomings" in the supporting materials is more persuasive than rhetoric that hides them. Selection support is never a packaging exercise.
4. Data Credibility: Coverage Is the Hidden Third Column
Before reading the score of any dimension, first look at data coverage. For dimensions with low coverage, the explanatory power of the score is discounted; for information not included, the profile explicitly marks "not provided in the current profile," and corresponding statements in the materials should also leave room for uncertainty.
Summary: The eight-dimensional score provides facts and relative position. It answers "what the candidate's public profile looks like," not "whether support should be given"—the authority to judge the latter rests with the organization and the candidate themselves. Only by thoroughly understanding the facts can decisions have a basis.