Jordan Ellis
Supply Chain Operations Leader
ILLUSTRATIVE AUTHORITY SCORE
78/100FICTIONAL RECORD EXAMPLE
- Strong distribution and operations experience
- Practical guidance supported by project records
- Fewer documented community contributions
HOW IT WORKS
Two professionals.
Two different records.
See how professional evidence, industry-group membership, and community participation are considered in the proposed Authority Score.
Claire Morgan
Supply Chain Leader
ILLUSTRATIVE AUTHORITY SCORE
89/100FICTIONAL RECORD EXAMPLE
- Professional experience supported by evidence
- Secret Society of Supply Chain member
- Active in roundtables and shared practical guidance
What’s different in their records?
Claire’s example includes industry-group membership and more community participation alongside her professional evidence.
Explore the supporting recordsScoring direction: membership and participation can influence the score, with additional weight for qualifying LTSC community activity. Exact weights are still to be defined.
Fictional profiles and authored illustrative totals. These records do not calculate the 78 and 89 totals or explain an exact 11-point difference.
THE RECORD BEHIND EACH SCORE
See what supports each profile.
Follow the contribution, its source, and the review context.
Jordan Ellis
Supply Chain Operations Leader
Fictional exampleExperienceRegional distribution leadership
- Contribution
- Led distribution operations across three facilities.
- Source
- Sample employer attestation and role history.
- Review
- Check role, dates and operating scope.
Illustrative evidence for a fictional profile. No real source file is attached.
ExpertiseA practical guide to inventory risk
- Contribution
- Explains a repeatable way to prioritize inventory risk.
- Source
- Fictional article with an original framework.
- Review
- Check authorship, originality, depth and supporting claims.
Illustrative evidence for a fictional profile. No real source file is attached.
Claire Morgan
Supply Chain Leader
Fictional exampleCommunity participationShared guidance in an industry roundtable
- Contribution
- Presented a practical resilience framework.
- Source
- Sample agenda, contribution and participation record.
- Review
- Check authorship, relevance, permissions and participation.
Illustrative evidence for a fictional profile. No real source file is attached.
Group membershipSecret Society of Supply Chain affiliation
- Contribution
- The fictional example includes community membership.
- Source
- Synthetic membership and affiliation record.
- Review
- Confirm eligibility, dates and paid status under the eventual policy.
Illustrative evidence for a fictional profile. No real source file is attached.
These sample records illustrate the comparison; they do not calculate the 78 and 89 totals. Membership and participation weighting remains to be defined.
A focused roadmap, not every platform
Illustrative goal: make inventory-planning expertise easier to understand. This is not a real member result or a promise of a score increase.
Bring your work together.
Choose an existing article or talk on inventory planning. Add its source and explain your role, rather than opening another channel.
Review what it supports.
The intended review asks what the work demonstrates, what can be checked and what needs clarification. A submitted link is not verified evidence.
Close a specific gap.
If an outcome lacks context, add the baseline, your contribution and a source you are permitted to share. Keep confidential details private.
Make one useful next contribution.
Explain one planning trade-off in a focused post or proposed LTSC article. Choose the audience and format for the idea, not automatic points.
SOURCES & REVIEW
A clear source.
A meaningful review.
A professional record is stronger when a reviewer can understand what happened, where it is documented, and what you contributed.
The examples illustrate a review approach. Final scoring weights remain to be defined.
What supports the record?
Role histories, project records, published work, independent references, and industry-group membership or participation records.
What can a reviewer check?
Authorship, dates, relevance, scope and the person’s role in the contribution.
What context matters?
Disclose sponsorship, paid placement, assistance and permissions where relevant.
Private evidence stays distinct from public presentation.
A private assessment and an approved public profile are separate. A score alone does not authorize publication.
Four dimensions. Unresolved weighting.
The framework also considers qualifying industry-group memberships and participation. Final weighting is still being defined. The proposed framework gives additional weight to qualifying Let’s Talk Supply Chain and Secret Society of Supply Chain community activity. Exact weights, eligibility criteria, missing-data rules and review treatment remain to be finalized.
- Experience
- Lived Operating Record
- Expertise
- Domain Depth
- Authority
- Recognized Standing
- Trust
- Verifiable Trust
Membership and participation have not yet been mapped into these dimensions. The earlier equal 25-point illustration is not final policy. Eligibility, paid membership and sponsored contributions, missing data, consent and public-profile rules remain unresolved.
The framework is designed, but live numerical assessments are not connected here. In the saved engine, Recognized Standing remains incomplete and the overall CAI remains unavailable. Public-profile publication is forthcoming; a demonstration switch does not establish access control.
Explore membership
Bring your experience into the conversation.