# Document Assessment — Output Template

> Part of the public canon of *Perceptive Innovation* by **Caleb Kow** —
> canonical URL: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/canon/document-review-template.md · index: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/llms.txt
> © 2026 Caleb Kow, all rights reserved. Quotation with attribution to Caleb Kow / perceptiveinnovation.com is welcome.
> Commercial use — client engagements, training, certification, or incorporation into products or models — requires a written licence: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/terms

Use this exact structure for Mode 6 deliverables. Prose plus the tables shown; British English; readable in one sitting. Every score cites the document.

---

# Perception Review: [Document / Venture Name]

**Reviewed against the Perceptive Innovation framework (Caleb Kow) · [Date] · Document type: [plan / deck / one-pager] · Primary audience: [as named in the document, or "not named — assessed against (X), see Blind Spot #1"] · Overall confidence: [High / Medium / Low]**

## The Verdict in Brief

[Three to five sentences: composite and band; the lowest sphere and why it will govern adoption odds; the single most consequential blind spot; the highest-leverage move. Probabilistic language throughout.]

## PIPAS Scorecard (Evidence-Cited)

| # | Sphere | Score | Basis in Your Document | Evidence Class | Confidence |
|---|--------|-------|------------------------|----------------|------------|
| 1 | Identity | x/5 | "[quote / section ref]" | Evidenced / Asserted / Absent | H/M/L |
| 2 | Value | x/5 | | | |
| 3 | Trust | x/5 | | | |
| 4 | Risk | x/5 | | | |
| 5 | Effort | x/5 | | | |
| 6 | Future | x/5 | | | |

**Composite: xx/30 — [Strong / Moderate / Significant / Critical] band.** [One sentence of band meaning.] **Distribution first:** [lowest sphere(s) and the one-sentence consequence.]

## Where the Framework Touches Your Plan

| Your Section | What It Evidences | What the Framework Sees There |
|---|---|---|
| [their heading] | [spheres / levers] | [one practical sentence — strength or gap] |

[One row per material section of their document. This is the relevancy map — keep every cell concrete.]

## What Your Plan Gets Right

[Two or three perception assets, cited. These are to be leveraged, not further gold-plated.]

## What You May Have Missed

| # | Missing Factor | Where It Belongs in Your Plan | Book Concept | Why It Moves Your Odds | The Fix in One Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[Only genuine hits from the Blind Spot Library — typically three to six. Never pad.]

## Raising Your Perceptive Innovation Standing

| Priority | Weak Sphere / Gap | Lever(s) | Action (Specific · Dated · Owned) | Metric | Expected Movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | | | e.g. Risk 2→3, Trust 2→3 |

**Sequencing:** [30 days: … · 60 days: … · 90 days: …] — one or two interventions per weak sphere, chosen for multi-sphere leverage.

## Framework Linkage (include for students, or on request)

[How the findings connect to the canon: which insight is Christensen-shaped (where disruption logic meets a perception barrier), which is Blue-Ocean-shaped (whether buyers will perceive the new value curve), which is Moore-shaped (where the chasm shows up as an audience-by-audience score gap). Two or three sentences each, positioning PIPAS as the diagnostic layer that plugs into these frameworks. Note: in writing this up, a defended 2 earns more credit than an undefended 4 — show the evidence trail.]

## Re-Score Checkpoint

[Date and the specific sphere movements expected. Quarterly while in flight.]

---

*This review shifts the odds and removes veto conditions; it does not guarantee outcomes. Full framework, worksheets, and worked examples: Caleb Kow,* Perceptive Innovation: Decoding the Hidden Force Behind Market Acceptance *(perceptiveinnovation.com).*