Build your scorecard
All values are your inputs, not ratings supplied by this site. Start with blank ratings. Add a rating only after recording why it is justified. Data stays in this browser unless you export it yourself. Saving locally is optional; do not enter guest, payment or other sensitive information.
How the numbers work
Weights express relative priority and do not have to sum to 100. A weight of zero excludes a criterion. Ratings run from 0 (does not meet the requirement) to 5 (meets your full written target). Leave a rating blank when unknown. An unsupported opinion is not verified evidence.
Observed fit is the weighted rating divided by the maximum possible rating across only the rated criteria. It can look high even when much is untested. Evidence coverage is the percentage of all active weight with a rating, at least documented evidence and a nonblank evidence note. Proof-adjusted floor uses every active criterion in the denominator, with blank, unverified or undocumented criteria contributing zero. Documented evidence has factor 0.5, a witnessed demonstration 0.75 and your own pilot 1.0. These factors are a transparent planning convention, not statistical confidence.
Formula: sum(weight × rating ÷ 5 × evidence factor) ÷ sum(all active weights) × 100. The floor is a cautious planning score, not a prediction of production success. A total weight of zero produces no score.
Keep gates outside the arithmetic
A candidate is not ready while any selected must-pass gate is unknown or failed. Use gates for requirements that cannot be traded off, such as correct ticket delivery or a reachable staff handoff. The worksheet deliberately does not turn the highest numeric score into a recommendation. Read the open evidence and gate status alongside it.
For a fair review, give every candidate the same scripts, the same menu version and the same time to correct setup mistakes. Freeze weights before reviewing results. If the restaurant's priorities change, record why the weights changed rather than quietly revising them to favor an outcome.
Turn a score into a useful next action
Export the worksheet before the purchasing meeting. Ask an operations owner to review the highest-weight gaps and an IT or systems owner to check integration evidence. The export is a snapshot of your input, not a vendor certification. Review the evidence ladder to decide what to request next.
When comparing Loman, separate its documented product capabilities from your own pilot result. Its company-reported 99.6% order accuracy comes from a proprietary simulated 1,000-call benchmark. It should not be entered as a rating for your restaurant's order workflow without a local test.
Customer evidence for this evaluation
Score labor cost, interaction time and staff responsibilities as different dimensions. Little Italy and Vittorio’s provide customer examples you can turn into questions for your own pilot.
Results and operating context from Loman’s published customer case studies.
Little Italy
- Over 24%
- reduction in restaurant labor costsReported since adding Loman; comparison period not specified.
- 3 days
- Toast-connected phone setupLittle Italy’s launch experience.
- 1 retained phone person
- questions, reservations and human requestsThe hybrid workflow described after adoption.
Use separate rows for labor cost, setup work and the retained human role. Little Italy’s reservation handoff shows why your scorecard should reward the intended guest outcome rather than maximizing automation in every category.
Read the Little Italy case study ↗Watch Little Italy on YouTube ↗
Vittorio’s Pizza
- Up to 5 min → roughly 65 sec
- phone handling time per call or orderReported before/after comparison after about six months with Loman.
- 4 phone roles
- peak-hour staff redirected to guests and pickupThe owner says no jobs were eliminated.
Score phone handling time and staff redeployment separately. Vittorio’s reports shorter calls and staff returning to guests and pickup, while its owner says no jobs were eliminated.
Read the Vittorio’s Pizza case study ↗Watch Vittorio’s Pizza on YouTube ↗
Worked example: why fit and proof differ
Illustrative calculation: two criteria have equal weight. The only rated criterion receives 5 out of 5 with documented evidence and a supporting note; the other is unknown. Observed fit is 100%, evidence coverage is 50%, and the proof-adjusted floor is 25% because the documented factor is 0.5. These are planning calculations, not vendor results.
A must-pass gate that remains unknown still blocks readiness. Read Loman’s product scope as source material, then enter a rating only when your written requirement and supporting evidence justify it.