# Scoring Rubric — Automotive & EV Talent Self-Assessment

**Status: DRAFT. Not approved.** Every point value in this document was authored
here, not taken from the source spreadsheets. The spreadsheets defined the
questions and the section weights; they never defined how an answer becomes a
mark. Someone with authority over the programme needs to sign this off before it
scores a real candidate.

The live form is `index.html`. All numbers below are mirrored in its `SCHEMA`
constant — that is the single source of truth in code, and this file explains it.

---

## 0. Provenance — read this first

**The source documents never say what this assessment is for.** There is no title
page, no introduction, no programme name and no client name in either file. The
`education` sheet begins at "SECTION 2"; no Section 1 exists anywhere. The only
statements of intent are inside the consent text, and they are broad:

> "…may be used for **evaluation, selection, or database profiling** purposes."
> "…shared with **industry partners** for potential **training or job placement**."
> "…**profiling, evaluation, or talent matching** by relevant automotive
> organizations or institutions."

So the instrument feeds a talent database that is matched against industry
partners. Beyond that, its purpose is **an open question** — see § 6.8.

**The files were authored by a third party.** Both spreadsheets carry:

| | |
|---|---|
| `dc:creator` / `lastModifiedBy` | **MOTORDATA RESEARCH CONSORTIUM SDN BHD** |
| Created | 2025-06-20 |
| Template last modified | 2026-07-10 (recent — this is live, not an archive) |

Destar is nowhere in the file metadata. Per the repo owner, Destar nonetheless
owns this instrument, and the form is branded accordingly — MotorData appears to
have drafted or supplied the template. **That relationship is unconfirmed and
should be established before the form is shown to a candidate or a partner.**

One corroborating detail for § 1's claim that the rubric was never written, as
opposed to written and mislaid: `Evaluation Form - Points.xlsx` was created at
08:10:30 and last saved at 08:15:00 on the same morning. It was duplicated and
abandoned four and a half minutes later. Nobody began it.

---

## 1. How a score is produced

Each scored section accumulates **raw points**, then normalises to its **weight**:

```
sectionScore = (raw / rawMax) × weight
total        = Σ sectionScore          (rounded, out of 100)
```

The indirection is deliberate. It means a weight can be changed — including the
unresolved Technical-vs-Projects question — without rebalancing a single
individual point value. Edit `WEIGHTS` at the top of the `<script>` block; nothing
else needs to move.

## 2. Section weights

| # | Section | Weight | rawMax |
|---|---------|-------:|-------:|
| A | Personal & General Information | — | not scored |
| B | Education & Certification | 20 | 20 |
| C | Technical & Digital Competency | **20** | 50 |
| D | Projects, Thesis & Practical Work | **15** | 15 |
| E | Industry Experience & Engagement | 15 | 15 |
| F | Leadership & Soft Skills | 10 | 10 |
| G | Innovation, Digitalisation & Sustainability | 10 | 10 |
| H | Awards, Publications & Recognition | 10 | 10 |
| I | Self-Reflection & Career Aspiration | — | not scored |
| J | Declaration & Consent | — | not scored |
| | **Total** | **100** | |

> ### ⚠ Unresolved: C vs D
> The two source drafts contradict each other. The `personal` sheet weights
> Technical 20 / Projects 15; the `education` sheet weights Technical 15 /
> Projects 20. Both total 100.
>
> **The form currently ships the `personal` sheet weighting** (Technical 20).
> Rationale: Destar is a TVET skills institution, so demonstrated hands-on
> competency should outrank academic project work. That is a judgement call, not
> a finding. To flip it, swap the two numbers in `WEIGHTS` — no other change.

## 3. Per-section point values

### B · Education & Certification — rawMax 20

| Item | Points |
|------|-------:|
| Highest qualification — SPM / O-Level | 3 |
| Highest qualification — Certificate (TVET / SKM / other) | 5 |
| Highest qualification — Diploma | 7 |
| Highest qualification — Bachelor's degree | 9 |
| Highest qualification — Master's / PhD | 10 |
| Automotive certifications held — none / one / two / three+ | 0 / 2 / 3.5 / 5 |
| Completed OEM or industry training | 3 |
| Currently pursuing a further qualification | 2 |

The curve on qualification is deliberately shallow at the top (Bachelor's → PhD
is worth 1 point) and steep at the bottom (SPM → Certificate is worth 2). A TVET
institution should not pay a large premium for a doctorate over a diploma.

### C · Technical & Digital Competency — rawMax 50

Ten competency rows, each rated 0–5, summed. `0` = no exposure; `1` = basic;
`3` = competent and unsupervised; `5` = expert, can train others.

Rows: engine diagnostics · EV/hybrid technology · auto electrical & wiring ·
brake, chassis & suspension · air-conditioning · diagnostic tools (OBD-II,
Bosch) · 3D CAD/design · CNC/welding/fabrication · smart vehicle systems
(ADAS, CAN bus) · programming/automation.

All ten rows carry equal weight. **This is the most questionable default in the
rubric.** For an EV/green-tech institution, EV/hybrid technology arguably should
not be worth exactly the same as air-conditioning. Weighting the rows is a
one-line change if you want it.

### D · Projects, Thesis & Practical Work — rawMax 15

| Item | Points |
|------|-------:|
| Has completed a technical project or thesis | 6 |
| Each project type participated in (5 available) | 1.5 each, capped at 6 |
| Has applied an innovation in a project | 3 |

Only the *fact* of a project scores. The title, objective, tools, role and
outcome fields are captured as evidence but are **not** auto-scored — a machine
grading free prose here would be worse than useless. If you want project
*quality* to count, that needs a human evaluator pass, which this instrument
does not currently have. See § 6.

### E · Industry Experience & Engagement — rawMax 15

| Item | Points |
|------|-------:|
| Has worked in or trained in an automotive setting | 5 |
| Each engagement type (7 available) | 1 each, capped at 7 |
| Member of a professional body or association | 3 |

Note that *years* of experience is collected in Section A but does not score.
That is a gap — a 10-year technician and a 6-week intern both score 5 here. See § 6.

### F · Leadership & Soft Skills — rawMax 10

| Item | Points |
|------|-------:|
| Each leadership role held (4 available) | 1 each, capped at 4 |
| Five soft skills, each rated 0–5 | sum / 25 × 6 |

"No leadership role yet" is an exclusive option — ticking it clears the others.

Self-rated soft skills are the weakest signal in the whole instrument; that is
why they are worth 6 points and not 20.

### G · Innovation, Digitalisation & Sustainability — rawMax 10

| Item | Points |
|------|-------:|
| Has proposed or implemented a process/product/tool improvement | 4 |
| Each contribution area (3 available) | 2 each, capped at 6 |

### H · Awards, Publications & Recognition — rawMax 10

| Item | Points |
|------|-------:|
| Each award type (6 available) | 1 each, capped at 6 |
| Each publication type (4 available) | 1 each, capped at 4 |

## 4. Bands

| Total | Band |
|------:|------|
| 80–100 | Advanced · industry-ready |
| 60–79 | Proficient · targeted upskilling |
| 40–59 | Developing · structured training |
| 0–39 | Foundational · entry pathway |

Invented here. The cut points have no empirical basis yet — they should be
calibrated against a real cohort once one exists, not fixed by argument.

## 5. Merge decisions

The two source sheets were different revisions of the same form. Where they
diverged, this instrument takes the **union**, so nothing from either draft is
silently dropped:

- **Technical skills.** `education` listed CNC/welding/fabrication; `personal`
  listed smart vehicle systems (ADAS, CAN bus). Both are included → 10 rows, not 9.
- **Industry engagement.** Union of both option lists → 7 options, not 5 or 6.
- **Section A.** Only `personal` had the personal-details block; `education`
  began at "Section 2" with no Section 1 anywhere. Section A is kept.
- **Self-reflection.** Only in `personal`. Kept, unscored.
- **Innovation.** `education` asked three yes/no questions; `personal` asked the
  same three as checkboxes. Collapsed into one checkbox group.
- **Rating scales.** Both drafts used 1–5 with no "none" option, which forces
  someone with zero exposure to a subject to claim "basic" in it. A `0` / "—"
  column was added.
- **Checkbox glyphs.** The source used `☐` characters in cells. These are real
  form controls now — screen-reader accessible and actually clickable.

## 6. Known gaps — decide before this goes live

1. **Years of experience does not score.** Collected, ignored. A ten-year
   technician and a six-week intern score identically in Section E.
2. **No evaluator pass.** Everything is self-declared and self-scored. Nothing
   verifies a claimed SKM, award or OEM training. If this feeds job placement,
   it needs a moderation step — an evaluator view that can adjust a section score
   with a reason attached.
3. **Project quality is unscored** — only its existence counts. See § D.
4. **Technical rows are equally weighted**, including in an EV institution. See § C.
5. **Bands are uncalibrated.** See § 4.
6. **PDPA 2010.** The form collects IC/passport number, DOB and contact details —
   personal data, and arguably sensitive. Currently: IC is marked optional,
   industry-sharing consent is optional and separable from submission, and
   nothing leaves the browser. Before any real deployment Destar still needs a
   stated retention period, a named data controller, and a written notice in BM
   and English. Consent that is a precondition of assessment is not freely given
   and would not be valid.
7. **No submission path.** The form scores in-browser and exports JSON or PDF.
   There is no backend. If Destar wants collected responses, that is a separate
   decision with its own PDPA consequences — a static Cloudflare Pages site
   cannot receive data without adding a Function and a store.
8. **Nobody has said what this is for.** Not a gap in the build — a gap in the
   brief. The documents don't state it (§ 0) and the team doesn't currently know.
   Until someone does, these stay unanswered, and each one changes the
   instrument:
   - **Who sits it?** A Destar intake cohort, existing industry technicians, or a
     national skills audit? The Section A role list spans all three, which is why
     it reads as unfocused.
   - **What happens to the score?** Selection, streaming into a training plan, or
     a placement database? A form that gates admission needs verification and an
     appeals route; a form that plans someone's training does not.
   - **What is MotorData's role**, given they authored the files? (§ 0)
   - **Is this the UNISEL TVET ask, or unrelated?** The wider Destar engagement
     has an open question about what UNISEL actually requested. If this is the
     answer to it, that reframes the whole thing — and it would be automotive,
     not drone.
   - **Why is it automotive at all**, when Destar is an EV/green-tech
     institution? EV/hybrid is one row out of ten in a form otherwise built for
     conventional-drivetrain servicing.