2026-05-25 22:33:55lisa:
SD C04 Designing an Evaluation Matrix: add CHOICE matrix as a design-decisions table
Shows the matrix structure (criteria, weights, measurement method, counts-toward-rating) with the two excluded columns flagged, rather than reproducing CHOICE's per-product grid. Verified weights; attributed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
sd/C04/Designing an Evaluation Matrix.md ..
@@ 24,6 24,23 @@
Every one of those is a decision someone made and could defend. That is what you are learning to do.
+
Here is that same matrix laid out **as a set of design decisions** — not the product scores (those are CHOICE's data), but the *shape* you are reverse-engineering:
+
+
| Criterion | Weight | How it's measured | Counts toward the rating? |
+
|---|---|---|---|
+
| Sound quality | **45%** | Lab measurement | ✅ |
+
| Active noise cancellation | **15%** | Lab (ANC active, max reduction) | ✅ |
Read the table *downwards* and the design jumps out: six criteria carry the score, the weights tilt hard toward sound, and two whole columns are measured but **deliberately left out**. In this test the top travel picks landed at Sony WH-1000XM6 80%, JBL Tour One M3 79% and Bose QuietComfort Ultra 78% — but the lesson is the *shape* above, not the ranking.
+
+
*Structure and weights: CHOICE, May 2026 (choice.com.au). The per-product scores are CHOICE's own data — see the original.*
