linkedin-studio/references/trend-scoring-modes.md

Trend Scoring Modes Reference

Single source of truth for how a discovered trend/topic candidate is scored. There are two modes — they share the same 1–10 per-dimension scale and the same composite formula, but they weight the dimensions differently because a feed post and a long-form chronicle reward different things. Surfaces (the trend-spotter agent, any research-engine pass) select a mode and apply the matching rubric — they do not restate the weights inline. Cite this file; do not duplicate it.

This file defines methodology (the weights), not user preference. The source list a pass polls is separate and user-overridable — see config/trends-sources.template.md → ${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/trends/sources.md.

How to read this file

• Score each dimension 1–10 (see the bands in the per-mode tables).
• Composite = the weighted sum of the five dimension scores. Each mode's weights sum to 100 %, so the composite stays on the same 0–10 scale across modes.
• The ordering of the weights is the signal; the exact percentages are a deliberate, documented choice, not a measured coefficient. (Timing grounding — why a feed post weights recency and a chronicle does not — traces to references/algorithm-signals-reference.md; this file does not restate algorithm magnitudes.)

Mode selection

Mode	Use for	Driver
kortform	feed posts (/linkedin:post, :quick, :react, :carousel, :video)	timing + audience pull — a good post published early beats a perfect post published late
long-form	chronicles / newsletters / series editions (/linkedin:newsletter)	depth + angle — a chronicle has a longer shelf life; whether there is enough material for a full piece matters more than a 24-hour window

If no mode is declared, default to kortform (the feed is the higher-cadence surface). A caller may pass the mode explicitly (e.g. the long-form orchestrator requesting long-form); a future slice may read a per-user default from the profile.

Mode: kortform (LinkedIn feed post)

Tuned for the feed: timing and audience pull carry real weight because the first-mover window is short.

Dimension	Weight	1–2 (Low)	3–5 (Medium)	6–8 (High)	9–10 (Exceptional)
Pillar Fit	30 %	Outside all 5 pillars	Tangential to one pillar	Direct hit on one pillar	Intersects 2+ pillars
Audience Relevance	25 %	Wrong audience entirely	Some audience overlap	Core audience cares	Audience actively asking about this
Timing	20 %	>7 days old, saturated	3–7 days, moderate coverage	24–72h, early coverage	<24h, you would be among first
Angle Potential	15 %	Only obvious take available	One good angle possible	2–3 strong angles	Contrarian or unique angle clear
Authority Match	10 %	No credibility on topic	Some related experience	Direct experience	Published authority on this

Composite = (Pillar × 0.30) + (Audience × 0.25) + (Timing × 0.20) + (Angle × 0.15) + (Authority × 0.10)

Mode: long-form (chronicle / newsletter / series)

Reweighted for a longer piece: depth potential enters at 25 %, and timing drops to 10 % — a chronicle is not a 24-hour reaction, so recency matters less than whether the topic has enough substance and a differentiated angle to carry a full edition.

Dimension	Weight	1–2 (Low)	3–5 (Medium)	6–8 (High)	9–10 (Exceptional)
Pillar / thesis fit	30 %	Outside the active theses	Tangential to one thesis	Fits one thesis / series arc	Advances 2+ theses or a live series arc
Depth potential	25 %	A single post at most	Enough for one solid post	Enough for a full chronicle	Enough for a multi-part series
Angle / differentiation	20 %	Commodity take only	One non-obvious angle	2–3 differentiated angles	Original thesis the field lacks
Authority / experience	15 %	No credibility on topic	Some related experience	Direct lived experience	Published authority on this
Currency	10 %	Stale / already resolved	Relevant this quarter	Relevant now, durable	Relevant now AND will compound

Composite = (Pillar × 0.30) + (Depth × 0.25) + (Angle × 0.20) + (Authority × 0.15) + (Currency × 0.10)

Why the two modes differ (the one delta)

The two rubrics are the same five-dimension instrument with one deliberate swap:

• kortform: Timing 20 %, no depth dimension — the feed rewards being early.
• long-form: Timing → Currency at 10 %, Depth potential added at 25 % — a chronicle rewards substance and a durable angle over speed.

Pillar fit (30 %) and authority (kortform 10 % / long-form 15 %) anchor both: an off-pillar or low-credibility topic scores low in either mode, because topic relevance and credibility are non-negotiable regardless of format.

Composite → action

The same priority bands apply to both modes (the composite is on the same 0–10 scale):

Composite	Priority	kortform action	long-form action
8.0–10	Immediate	Draft within 24h	Promote to the edition backlog now
6.0–7.9	High	Publish within 48–72h	Strong edition candidate — schedule it
4.0–5.9	Medium	Add to this week's calendar	Hold as a backlog candidate, revisit
2.0–3.9	Low	Note, skip for now	Park unless the angle sharpens
0–1.9	Skip	Off positioning	Off positioning

Calibration — the expected score distribution (MR-F6)

The five dimensions are model judgment, and unanchored judgment inflates: an observed sweep put 13 of 20 candidates in Immediate (≥8.0), which makes the band meaningless — if most things are "draft now", nothing is. The composite is only useful if the bands are scarce at the top. So a scoring pass must calibrate against this distribution expectation, not score each candidate generously in isolation:

• In a typical sweep, most candidates belong in Medium–High (4.0–7.9). That is the honest home of "worth writing about, eventually".
• Immediate (≥8.0) is the exception, not the rule — reserve it for candidates that are genuinely exceptional relative to the rest of this sweep. As a working target, expect on the order of ≤3 of 20 in Immediate; a sweep that floods the top band is uncalibrated, not lucky.
• Skip/Low (<4.0) is a real outcome — an off-pillar or already-resolved topic should land there, not get floated to Medium to be polite.

Mechanics for the pass:

• Score relatively across the batch. A 9–10 on a dimension means "exceptional versus the other candidates in this sweep", not "good in the abstract". Rank the batch, then assign — a flat batch of 8s is the failure mode this rule exists to catch.
• The distribution shape is the mechanism; the threshold of what counts as exceptional is the user's calibration (the dimension rubrics above + the profile), never a hard-coded fact about any one operator's topics. Domain-general: the anti-inflation rule travels; the specific bar does not live here.
• This is now measurable. The composite + band are persisted on each record (RE-R3a, TrendRecord.score), so the distribution can be checked across runs — e.g. count the Immediate share of a stored sweep. The MR-F7 band-cap gate (N7) builds on the same persisted signal: a candidate with no formulable reader-grip is capped below Immediate regardless of composite.

Consumers

• agents/trend-spotter.md — reads the requested mode and applies the matching rubric instead of inlining a matrix (wired in research-engine slice 2b).
• Any future research-engine pass that scores candidates before writing them to the trend store (scripts/trends/).

Note (RE-R3d): the morning brief applies a brief-time temporal overlay (first-mover / saturation, derived from the publish/capture dates + the seen-log) as a within-composite-tier ranking refinement. It is a separate layer from this file — it does not change the capture-time dimension weights, bands, or composite formula above.