Three identity axes resolved from the transaction record, reported with the rating.
A GM search should return a shape, not a ranked list: the overall rating and, beside it, a three-axis identity from the transaction record. Two composite front offices, both rated 87.
Identical rating, opposite fingerprints. A single number would call them interchangeable and be useless the moment you needed to hire one. Both questions answered: how good, and good at what.
Illustrative read on the real rating-plus-identity structure (three axes from the transaction record). Composite front offices, demonstration figures.
The GM controls allocation; the owner controls budget. Judging the GM without separating the two blames him for a ceiling he did not set. Composite GM under a tight owner.
On the surface he looks cheap and passive. Strip out a hard budget ceiling and a no-tax mandate and his spend and navigation grades rise: he was not unwilling, he was not allowed. The owner-neutral pillars do not move. Grade the GM against the room he was in, and read the owner separately.
Illustrative read on the real owner-adjustment structure (re-reads spend and navigation against the owner's budget and willingness). Composite GM and owner, demonstration figures.
Identity is only good or bad against a situation. Read against the team's actual window, a great GM in the wrong seat reads as the mismatch he is. Same aggressive-buyer identity, two teams.
The same 87-rated buyer is a perfect hire for one team and a slow-motion mistake for the other. A rating alone would greenlight both. Hire the fingerprint that fits the window, not just the highest number.
Illustrative read on the real identity-to-window fit structure. Composite GM and team situations, demonstration figures.
How good is the easy question; what kind, for which window, is the one that decides a hire.
Rate the front office, read its identity, and separate the GM from the owner.