Day 9: Score candidate #1 end-to-end

The boring one — six signals, 15 minutes, one composite.

Yesterday

Yesterday you picked three candidates and wrote a gut prediction for each. Today, the boring one gets the full composite.

Why this signal matters

Running the full composite once feels slow; running it three times in a row makes the procedure muscle-memory. Candidate #1 is intentionally the boring one so you're calibrating with low emotional stakes.

The 5-minute exercise

1Open your candidate #1 GitHub org in one tab.
2Run signal 1 (commit velocity), note the +0/+1.
3Run signal 2 (contributor diversity), note the +0/+1.
4Run signals 3-6 the same way. 90 seconds each.
5Total composite. Compare to your gut prediction.

What you’re filtering for

A composite score (0-6) and a one-sentence note for each signal: what the data showed and how confident you are.

Edge case

If you stall on signal 3 (dependents graph) because the page is empty, that's not zero — that's 'private distribution' and it deserves a note, not a default 0.

Bonus

Watch the clock. If you're at 25+ minutes on candidate #1, you're over-thinking. The whole point of the manual procedure is that it's fast enough to run on every founder you meet.

Tomorrow

Tomorrow: candidate #2, the obvious one. Your prediction was probably high — let's see whether the composite agrees.

Curriculum: /challenge · Methodology: /methodology · Paper: ssrn.com/abstract=6606558