Below is a single, field-usable RUBRIC + SCORING TOOL designed specifically for U.S. Embassy Dhaka (and similar missions) to evaluate video and social-video products—quickly, consistently, and without turning staff into filmmakers.
This rubric is built directly from:
- State / DoD public guidance
- Plain Language Act principles
- Accessibility rules
- The combined pre/mid/post checklist you approved
It is intentionally:
- fast (2–3 minutes per product),
- non-punitive,
- comparable across time, and
- suitable for training and institutional memory.
REVIEW RUBRIC + SCORING TOOL
Product ID:
Platform: (Website / YouTube / Facebook / X / IG)
Date Posted:
Reviewer:
Product Type: (Remarks / Alert / Explainer / Event / Human Interest)
SECTION 1 — PURPOSE & POLICY ALIGNMENT (0–4)
| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose clarity | Unclear | Implied | Explicit |
| Audience fit | Misaligned | Mixed | Clear |
| Policy consistency | Contradicts | Ambiguous | Aligned |
| New commitments avoided | No | Risky | Yes |
Score (max 8): ___ / 8
Red flag: Any “0” in policy consistency or commitments → mandatory FSO review.
SECTION 2 — LANGUAGE & MEANING SAFETY (0–6)
| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain English | Jargon-heavy | Mixed | Clear |
| Sentence survivability | Breaks | Partial | Safe |
| Clip risk (10s) | High | Medium | Low |
Score (max 6): ___ / 6
Ask: If this were clipped and reposted without context, would it mislead?
SECTION 3 — VISUAL & AUDIO QUALITY (0–6)
| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audio clarity | Poor | Adequate | Clear |
| Framing & stability | Distracting | Acceptable | Professional |
| Visual appropriateness | Risky | Neutral | Aligned |
Score (max 6): ___ / 6
Rule: Bad audio caps total score at 50%, regardless of content.
SECTION 4 — EDITING & PRESENTATION (0–6)
| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning preserved | No | Mostly | Yes |
| Emotional manipulation avoided | No | Borderline | Yes |
| Platform-appropriate length | No | Mostly | Yes |
Score (max 6): ___ / 6
SECTION 5 — ACCESSIBILITY & COMPLIANCE (0–6)
| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Captions accuracy | Missing | Auto-only | Accurate |
| Transcript availability | No | Partial | Yes |
| Records awareness | None | Assumed | Explicit |
Score (max 6): ___ / 6
SECTION 6 — SOCIAL-SPECIFIC RISK (If Applicable) (0–6)
| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption text safety | Risky | Neutral | Safe |
| Hashtag discipline | Misleading | Minimal | Appropriate |
| Standalone survivability | No | Partial | Yes |
Score (max 6): ___ / 6
TOTAL SCORE
Maximum: 38 (non-social) / 44 (social)
Score: ___
Score Interpretation
- 34+ → Model product (training example)
- 26–33 → Acceptable, minor improvements
- 18–25 → High risk; review before reuse
- <18 → Do not reuse; training case (failure)
SECTION 7 — QUALITATIVE NOTES (Required)
What worked well (1–2 bullets):
What should change next time (1–2 bullets):
Clearance lessons (if any):
HOW THIS RUBRIC IS MEANT TO BE USED
- Before posting (quick pre-check)
- After posting (post-mortem)
- In training (compare good vs bad)
- Across time (track improvement)
- Across platforms (normalize standards)
WHAT THIS REPLACES
- Vibes-based approval
- “Don’t post anything” defaults
- Over-escalation to Washington
- Post-hoc damage control
WHAT THIS ENABLES (New Utility)
- Shared judgment language (LES ↔ FSO)
- Faster approvals
- Safer experimentation
- Institutional memory without blame
Member discussion: