What Evalio makes reviewable — and what remains protected.
Evalio's methodology is the structured decision standard at the core of the platform. This page describes what users provide, what Evalio returns, how outputs should be reviewed, and what remains confidential. Protected methodology increases integrity; it is not exposed here.
What users provide
Users provide structured role evidence and organisational context — not job titles, pay bands, or market surveys. The inputs are explicit, bounded, and legible. The method reads role evidence through a protected internal method; what the platform exposes publicly is the boundary of what you provided.
What Evalio returns
Evalio returns a bounded output: a grade view, evidence posture, reference framework views, and an interpretive summary scoped to the information provided. The output does not overstate certainty. It documents what the output represents — without exposing protected internal logic.
How outputs should be reviewed
Every Evalio output is designed to be reviewed — by HR, Rewards, Finance, or an executive audience — in the Decision Room. Review means reading the output, the review context, and the governance boundaries around it. It does not mean inspecting internal mechanics.
What remains confidential
Internal methodology, evaluation mechanics, grade mechanics, equivalence mechanics, pay mechanics, and internal system behaviour remain confidential. Protected methodology increases integrity — not by obscurity, but because governance boundaries prevent misinterpretation and misuse.
Interpretation layers
The public method teaches how to read the output, not how the internal logic runs.
Evalio separates output transparency from internal-logic exposure. Users can read what the output represents, what review context it carries, and what its boundaries are — without seeing internal mechanics. Reviewability does not require exposing protected methodology.
Company-size interpretation
Company size changes the meaning of role weight.
Evalio does not read titles in isolation. The same title can carry different organisational consequence depending on scale, layers, market reach, and decision exposure.
Titles may carry broad scope but limited organisational weight. Evalio treats scale carefully so founder or early-team breadth is not mistaken for large-enterprise grade depth.
Functional ownership and manager titles are interpreted against narrower structural complexity, fewer layers, and more direct execution responsibility.
Role weight begins to reflect formal functions, layered accountability, cross-functional coordination, and more stable decision boundaries.
Scope is interpreted against multi-layer governance, group operating complexity, enterprise risk, and wider organisational consequence.
Evidence quality
Evidence quality controls how much weight the result should carry.
Strong evidence
Clear role purpose, accountabilities, people scope, decision authority, delivery complexity, and context are aligned.
Moderate evidence
Enough information exists for a directional grade, but some interpretation may depend on missing scope or unclear boundaries.
Thin evidence
The result can be useful for early diagnosis, but it should not carry heavy decision weight without strengthening the role evidence.
Contradictory evidence
Signals conflict. Decision Room should be used to identify whether the job description, title, or context needs correction before reliance.
Framework equivalence boundary
External framework references support interpretation; they do not replace governance.
Hay / Korn Ferry, Mercer IPE, WTW GGS, and Aon references are indicative alignment points. They help users understand relative positioning, but they are not formal certifications, proprietary framework conversions, or survey claims.
Pay perspective boundary
Indicative pay perspective is not a market survey or a compensation decision.
The pay perspective is an early discussion frame derived from Evalio Grade and company-size context. It does not represent local market benchmarking, internal equity analysis, budget approval, or final salary decision.
Decision Room governance
Decision Room exists to test whether the result is safe to use.
It reviews the evaluated role object, evidence sufficiency, coherence flags, confidence posture, framework alignment, and recommended next step. It does not regenerate the grade or expose the scoring model.
Proceed
Use the result as a bounded input when evidence is coherent and confidence is adequate for the intended decision.
Strengthen evidence
Return to the role basis when responsibilities, authority, people scope, or commercial scope are unclear.
Review
Use Decision Room when the result is directionally useful but interpretation needs HR, Rewards, or Finance judgment.
Escalate
Move to guided review when coherence issues, title inflation, or material ambiguity may affect decision defensibility.
What the methodology does and does not claim.
Evalio's evaluation doctrine is explicit about scope. Bounded claims and visible output boundaries — with protected internal logic — are not limitations. They are design features that support institutional confidence.
- The method evaluates roles, not individuals. Individual performance, relationships, or seniority signals are outside the method's scope.
- Inputs are bounded. The evaluation reflects the information provided. Incomplete or inconsistent inputs are flagged, not silently absorbed.
- Grade outputs are not pay decisions. They are a reviewable input into governed compensation review — not an end-to-end pay output.
- Market framing is interpreted, not applied directly. Market context is read through governed role and grade framing before informing pay positioning — this is not a salary survey.
- Public outputs do not expose internal mechanics. The public contract is interpretability of output and review context. Protected methodology — scoring, weights, formulas, thresholds, mapping mechanics, contradiction detection, evidence parsing, AI mechanics — remains confidential.
- What should not be inferred: that because the output is reviewable, the internal logic is disclosed. It is not. Reviewability does not require exposing internal scoring.
Methodology in context
See what the platform makes reviewable.
Try Job Evaluation
Run a bounded job evaluation and review what the output shows — under a public-safe output boundary.
ProofWatch the Method Demo
See a structured walkthrough of the evaluation doctrine and its public-safe output structure.
ReferenceFramework Equivalences
Bounded reference views across common market grading frameworks. Not a conversion engine.