# LLMHosts Advisory Council — Project Quality Score (PQS) Framework

**Version:** 1.0.0 | **Date:** 2026-03-10 | **Council:** 12 advisors + Arbiter

---

## Scoring Philosophy

Every category has 10 sub-dimensions scored 0-10, summing to 0-100. Advisor scores are aggregated by MEDIAN (not mean). Disagreements > 15 points trigger moderated discussion. Hard gates are non-negotiable minimums — failing any hard gate caps the PQS at 59 regardless of other scores.

## Categories, Weights, and Scoring Advisors

| # | Category | Weight | Hard Gate | Scoring Advisors |
|---|----------|--------|-----------|-----------------|
| 1 | Inference Engine Quality | 20% | ≥ 60 | Raghunathan (primary), Boateng, Bergström |
| 2 | Cross-Platform GPU Support | 10% | No | Boateng (primary), Raghunathan |
| 3 | Developer Experience & Onboarding | 15% | ≥ 55 | Tanaka (primary), Ibrahim |
| 4 | Privacy & Security Architecture | 15% | ≥ 65 | Obi (primary), Okonkwo |
| 5 | Business Model & Competitive Position | 15% | No | Nwosu (primary), Al-Rashid |
| 6 | Distributed Systems & Reliability | 10% | ≥ 55 | Vega (primary), Bergström |
| 7 | IP Strategy & Legal Soundness | 5% | No | Marchetti (primary) |
| 8 | Fine-Tuning Pipeline Viability | 5% | No | Kim (primary) |
| 9 | Engineering Feasibility | 5% | No | Bergström (primary), Vega |

**Weights sum:** 100%

## Hard Gate Rationale

- **Inference Engine ≥ 60:** If the core product (inference) is below acceptable quality, nothing else matters.
- **Developer Experience ≥ 55:** If the install and first-run experience is broken for a meaningful percentage of users, growth is impossible regardless of technical quality.
- **Privacy & Security ≥ 65:** The collective intelligence system processes user-adjacent data. Privacy failures are existential for trust. Security failures enable prompt exfiltration from marketplace.

## PQS Interpretation

| PQS Range | Interpretation | Action |
|-----------|---------------|--------|
| 90-100 | Exceptional — ready for aggressive scaling | Optimize edges, expand scope |
| 80-89 | Strong — production-ready with minor gaps | Continue improving, begin marketing |
| 70-79 | Solid — functional but notable gaps | Prioritize lowest-scoring categories |
| 60-69 | Adequate — MVP level, needs significant work | Fix fundamentals before new features |
| 50-59 | Below standard — major gaps | Stop new work, address fundamentals |
| < 50 | Unacceptable — do not launch or deploy | Full reassessment required |
