Making Effective Decisions: the 1–7 scoring scale explained
Civil Service behaviour statements are scored on a 1–7 scale against the level descriptor for the grade. For Making Effective Decisions, the score turns on how visible and how robust your reasoning is, not on how dramatic the decision was.
How the 1–7 scale applies to this behaviour
Most departments score behaviour statements on a seven-point scale, where 1 shows little or no evidence and 7 shows exceptional evidence against the level descriptor. The pass mark varies by department and campaign, so check the job advert; a 4 is widely treated as the benchmark for a solid demonstration.
For this behaviour, scores map to reasoning quality. Low scores mean the decision is invisible or unexplained. Middle scores mean a sound process described in general terms. High scores mean the full chain is visible: evidence gathered, options weighed, risk treated, decision owned, result quantified.
From the official guidance
Scoring methods are set by each department within the Success Profiles approach. The framework itself is published on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/success-profiles, but always read the advert for the exact scale and pass mark in use.
What 4, 5, 6 and 7 look like
The boundaries below describe how the scale typically reads for a Making Effective Decisions statement. Exact wording varies between departments, but the progression is consistent.
| Score | What the statement shows |
|---|---|
| 4 | A clear decision with evidence checked, options considered and a result given |
| 5 | Concrete detail throughout: named sources, costed options, stated trade-offs, quantified result |
| 6 | Plus risk treatment: assumptions tested, challenge sought, contingencies or review points set |
| 7 | Plus wider impact: the decision shaped practice beyond the immediate situation, with scale and influence shown |
For example, 'I compared three costed options, rejected the one that broke driver-hours rules, and set a 5pm review before extending the plan' contains the ingredients of a 6: comparison, rejection with reasons, and a built-in check.
Scores below 4 usually mean something structural is missing: no visible options, no evidence gathering, 'we' instead of 'I', or no result. Most can be fixed without changing the example.
How moderation keeps scoring fair
Individual assessors do not have the final word in isolation. Departments use moderation: a sample of statements is second-read, assessors who score consistently high or low are calibrated, and borderline scripts are discussed. As of July 2026 the details vary by department, but checking consistency is standard.
Moderation matters to you for one reason: it punishes statements that only make sense with insider knowledge. A moderator reading cold must be able to follow your reasoning, so explain acronyms and never assume the reader knows your workplace.
Use the scale to raise your score
Draft first, then score yourself honestly against the table. Most first drafts land at 4 because the reasoning is present but general. The climb to 5 and 6 comes from specifics: figures for the options, the assumption you tested, the review point you set.
Tip
Read your draft and highlight every number and every named source. If whole paragraphs pass without a highlight, that is where your score is leaking. Add the cost, the percentage or the policy clause you actually used.
For the full sift picture, see how assessors judge this behaviour, and our guide to the 1–7 scale across all behaviours.
Frequently asked questions
It varies by department and campaign, and adverts do not always publish it. A 4 per behaviour is widely treated as the benchmark for a solid pass, but competitive campaigns effectively demand higher because the strongest candidates score 5 and 6. Write to the top of the scale, not the pass mark.
Yes. Scores are given against the descriptor for that grade, so an AO statement with fully visible reasoning, concrete detail and a quantified result can score 7. You do not need senior-scale decisions at junior grades; you need complete evidence of judgement at your level.
No. The statement is scored as a whole against the level descriptor, though assessors mentally check the STAR elements. That is why a strong result cannot rescue an action section with no reasoning, and why structure still matters even without sectional scores.
Generality. The reasoning is there but thin: 'I looked at the costs' instead of a figure, 'I considered the risks' instead of a named risk and control. Moderators reading cold cannot award what they cannot see, so every vague phrase costs the mark it was hiding.
Next step
Get the free STAR template — the same structure used in every example on this site.
Download the template pack