THE BUYING RESEARCH DESKScope. Responsibility. Full cost.
09 / Scorecard

How should we run the evaluation meeting?

Section 09Page 6 of 13Last updated 20 October 2026
The research in focusRT / scorecard / 06

Have the IT owner and one business or procurement reviewer score independently first. Compare differences and write the reason for each final rating. The vendor may correct facts but should not assign its own final score.

Excerpt from this page. Supporting evidence and qualifications follow below.

Have the IT owner and one business or procurement reviewer score independently first. Compare differences and write the reason for each final rating. The vendor may correct facts but should not assign its own final score.

Use the same scenario, asset counts and evidence requests for each finalist. Separate present capability from roadmap promises. Where a reference customer is available, ask about comparable workload and escalation, with permission, rather than assuming all references validate the same environment.

For assurance documents, inspect the scope and limitations. AICPA's SOC 2 framework is not a basis for automatically awarding full points to a logo. For product terms, read the actual service supplement: Arctic Wolf's published MDR terms illustrate that product-level limitations can matter beyond the headline description.

Sources cited on this page

  1. AICPA's SOC 2 framework ↗aicpa-cima.com
  2. Arctic Wolf's published MDR terms ↗arcticwolf.com
Open the section source register →
SEARCH RESPONSE TERMS

Search across research, decision checks and provider categories.