Decision methodology

A score should expose uncertainty—not hide it.

StackOZ evaluates a platform as a decision system. Eligibility, fit, cost, switching burden, and evidence confidence stay separate so one flattering number cannot erase a serious tradeoff.

R1

Eligibility gates

Non-negotiable requirements are checked before scoring. If a platform cannot meet a required job—such as advanced automation, API access, or avoiding a paid-revenue platform fee—the result is marked Conditional or Not a fit.

R2

Personal job fit

Published capabilities are weighted against the operator’s business model, priorities, and team. List size, sending rhythm and growth feed the separate cost projection. The output is a fit score for that profile, never a universal winner.

R3

24-month economics

The model includes verified platform fees when the price rule is clear and percentage-based platform fees when relevant. Exact annual charges are used instead of rounded monthly displays. Migration is not priced or included. Dynamic tiers and payment processing remain unknown until a reliable quote is available.

R4

Switching burden

List size and workflow complexity can affect migration effort, but StackOZ does not invent a dollar amount or add it to cost. Check your forms, automations, DNS, training and launch plan separately before switching.

R5

Decision stability

StackOZ compares the lead platform with the next-best option and the current platform. A narrow score gap or weaker evidence lowers stability and can turn a tempting switch into “Later.”

R6

Evidence confidence

Records carry VERIFIED, PARTIAL, UNKNOWN, CONFLICTED or STALE status, a plan requirement, an official source and a last-verified date. Editorial capability scores are not measured outcomes; unknown or stale priority dimensions do not receive a fit score.