EN|FREN|FRScoring structures decision-making, compares relative exposure, identifies priorities. It must not be a certification, a guarantee of security, or a compliance claim. Scores represent current readiness, not future safety.
Meaningful scoring uses dimensions (e.g. governance and awareness, inventory completeness, crypto agility, third-party management, long-term data exposure), not raw answers. Each dimension aggregates multiple indicators; no single question should dominate.
PQC data is often incomplete or declarative. Scoring must reflect confidence levels, distinguish evidence from assumptions, tolerate unknowns. A robust model penalises lack of visibility, avoids optimistic bias, documents uncertainty explicitly.
Use scores to prioritize remediation, sequence migration, allocate budgets, justify investment. Focus on weakest dimensions, high-impact exposure, long-timeline dependencies. Scores guide where to start, not where to stop.
Communicate with context: explain methodology, scope, and assumptions; avoid absolute claims; prefer trends over single values. Responsible communication prevents false reassurance and misuse in contracts or marketing.