# Rubric: Execution Difficulty

> How hard is this option to execute well within format constraints?

Note: This rubric scores **difficulty**, not quality. Lower scores mean easier execution. The composite calculation may INVERT this (easy = high composite contribution) or use it as a tiebreaker.

---

## Scale Definition

| Score | Level | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| 1-3 | Straightforward | Standard techniques, proven patterns |
| 4-6 | Moderate | Requires skill but within established approaches |
| 7-8 | Challenging | Pushes format limits; high failure risk |
| 9-10 | Experimental | Untested territory; may not be achievable |

---

## Calibration Examples

### Score: 2/10 (Straightforward)
**Context:** Choosing an anchor type

**Option:** "The Cub—protagonist protects a vulnerable colleague."

**Why this scores 2:**
- Well-established pattern (mentor/protector dynamic)
- Many successful examples to draw from
- Emotional beats are predictable and achievable
- Can be written by following templates
- Low risk of failure

---

### Score: 5/10 (Moderate)
**Context:** Choosing an anchor type

**Option:** "The Ghost—protagonist is haunted by a dead colleague."

**Why this scores 5:**
- Requires balancing present and past timelines
- Flashbacks within 90-second episodes are tricky
- Must make absent character feel present
- Achievable with skill, but requires careful craft
- Some risk of the Ghost feeling disconnected

---

### Score: 7/10 (Challenging)
**Context:** Choosing an anchor type

**Option:** "The Mirror—the ASI reflects the protagonist's psychology."

**Why this scores 7:**
- Non-human anchor is harder to write emotionally
- Must make ASI feel like a character, not a plot device
- Balancing ASI's alien logic with emotional resonance is hard
- Easy to make ASI feel cold or the relationship feel forced
- Requires inventing new patterns (few models exist)
- High payoff if successful, high risk if not

---

### Score: 9/10 (Experimental)
**Context:** Choosing an anchor type

**Option:** "The Collective—anchor is the alien species itself, a hive mind the protagonist must learn to commune with."

**Why this scores 9:**
- No established patterns for hive-mind relationship
- Representing collective consciousness in 90 seconds is extremely hard
- Risk of feeling abstract or confusing
- May require new visual/dialogue conventions
- Could be brilliant or could be incomprehensible
- Would need significant experimentation to find what works

---

## Scoring Prompt

```
RUBRIC: Execution Difficulty
QUESTION: How hard is this option to execute well within format constraints?

SCALE:
1-3: Standard techniques, proven patterns
4-6: Requires skill but within established approaches
7-8: Pushes format limits; high failure risk
9-10: Untested territory; may not be achievable

CALIBRATION:
- A 2/10 is: "Cub anchor, mentor/protector dynamic" (proven pattern)
- A 5/10 is: "Ghost anchor, flashback integration" (requires craft)
- A 7/10 is: "Mirror anchor, non-human relationship" (few models, high risk)
- A 9/10 is: "Hive-mind anchor, collective consciousness" (experimental)

FORMAT CONSTRAINTS:
- 60 episodes, 90 seconds each
- V12 word count limits (450-500, see `/CONSTANTS.md`)
- Limited flashback capacity
- Must sustain across full series

OPTION TO SCORE:
{option_content}

TASK:
1. Identify execution challenges this option presents
2. Assess whether proven patterns exist
3. Evaluate risk of failure within format
4. Assign a score 1-10

Format:
EXECUTION CHALLENGES: [specific difficulties]
PROVEN PATTERNS: [do models exist?]
FORMAT FIT: [how does this work in 90-second episodes?]
SCORE: [X]/10
```

---

## Key Questions

When scoring execution difficulty, ask:

1. **Have we seen this done well before?**
   - In microdramas specifically?
   - In similar formats (short films, web series)?
   - In any format?

2. **What could go wrong?**
   - Technical challenges (pacing, structure)
   - Emotional challenges (connection, resonance)
   - Clarity challenges (audience understanding)

3. **Does the format help or hurt?**
   - 90 seconds is brutal for some things
   - Some options need more time than we have
   - Others are perfect for quick, punchy delivery

4. **What's the failure mode?**
   - If this doesn't work, what happens?
   - Can we recover, or is the series broken?

---

## Using This Score

### Option 1: Inverted Weight
**Easy is good:** In composite, subtract difficulty from 10.
- Difficulty 3 → contributes 7 to composite
- Difficulty 8 → contributes 2 to composite

### Option 2: Tiebreaker
**Difficulty as risk assessment:** Only use when other scores are close.
- If two options score similarly, prefer lower difficulty
- Unless higher difficulty has significantly higher upside

### Option 3: Flag High Difficulty
**User awareness:** Flag options scoring 7+ for user attention.
```
⚠ HIGH DIFFICULTY: This option scores 8/10 on execution difficulty.
It has high potential but significant risk. Proceed with awareness.
```

---

## Weight in Composite

**Suggested weight:** 15% of composite score (inverted)

Execution difficulty prevents us from selecting brilliant ideas we can't actually write. But we shouldn't be too conservative—high difficulty with high payoff can be worth the risk.