> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/AllianceBioversityCIAT/alliance-risk-analysis-tool/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Interpreting Assessment Results

> Understand risk scores, traffic-light indicators, evidence narratives, and how to act on risk assessment reports

# Interpreting Assessment Results

This guide explains how to read and understand the risk scores, indicators, and recommendations generated by the CGIAR Risk Intelligence Tool.

## Overview

After AI analysis completes, your assessment includes:

* **Overall Risk Score**: Aggregate score across all categories (0-100)
* **Risk Level**: Traffic-light classification (Low, Moderate, High, Critical)
* **Category Scores**: Individual scores for 7 risk dimensions
* **Subcategory Analysis**: Detailed 5-indicator breakdown per category
* **Evidence Narratives**: AI-generated explanations with source citations
* **Actionable Recommendations**: Prioritized mitigation strategies
* **Executive Summary**: High-level overview for stakeholders

## Accessing Your Results

<Steps>
  ### Navigate to Assessment

  From your dashboard:

  1. Locate the completed assessment (status: **COMPLETE**)
  2. Click the assessment row to open details
  3. Progress bar should show 100%

  <Screenshot>
    **Completed Assessment**
    Show: Dashboard with assessment table, one row highlighted showing "COMPLETE" status badge in green, 100% progress bar, and "View Report" button.
  </Screenshot>

  ### View Risk Scorecard

  The assessment detail page opens to the **Risk Scorecard** tab, showing:

  * Overall risk score and level
  * 7 category cards with individual scores
  * Radar chart visualization
  * Quick action buttons

  ### Switch Between Views

  Use the tab navigation:

  * **Risk Scorecard**: Summary scores and visualizations
  * **Full Report**: Complete analysis with evidence and recommendations
  * **Documents**: Uploaded files and parsing status
  * **Comments**: Team discussion and notes
</Steps>

## Understanding the Overall Risk Score

### Score Components

The overall risk score is displayed prominently at the top of the scorecard:

<Screenshot>
  **Overall Risk Score Display**
  Show: Large card with circular score indicator showing "68" out of 100, "High Risk" badge in orange, and horizontal gauge bar filled to 68% in orange color. Labels for Low (0-25), Moderate (26-50), High (51-75), Critical (76-100) below.
</Screenshot>

**Score**: Numeric value from 0-100

* **Lower scores** = Higher risk (0 = maximum risk)
* **Higher scores** = Lower risk (100 = minimal risk)
* Aggregated from 7 category scores
* Weighted by category importance

<Note>
  **Inverted Scale**: The platform uses an inverted scale where 0 represents critical risk and 100 represents minimal risk. This aligns with credit scoring conventions.
</Note>

### Risk Levels (Traffic Lights)

Scores map to four risk levels:

| Score Range | Level    | Color  | Meaning                                |
| ----------- | -------- | ------ | -------------------------------------- |
| **76-100**  | LOW      | Green  | Minimal risk exposure, strong controls |
| **51-75**   | MODERATE | Yellow | Acceptable risk with minor concerns    |
| **26-50**   | HIGH     | Orange | Significant risk requiring mitigation  |
| **0-25**    | CRITICAL | Red    | Severe risk, immediate action needed   |

**Visual Indicators**:

* **Color-coded badges**: Background and text color match risk level
* **Progress bar**: Filled portion shows score with matching color
* **Border styling**: Cards have colored borders matching severity

### Score Interpretation Guide

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Low Risk (76-100 points) - Green">
    **Interpretation**:

    * Business shows strong risk management
    * Most risk factors well-controlled
    * Documentation complete and thorough
    * Financial position stable

    **Typical Actions**:

    * Monitor ongoing performance
    * Maintain current controls
    * Focus on growth opportunities
    * Standard reporting frequency

    **Example Scenario**:
    An established dairy cooperative with 10 years of operations, diversified revenue streams, strong governance, comprehensive insurance, and detailed financial records scores 82/100.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Moderate Risk (51-75 points) - Yellow">
    **Interpretation**:

    * Generally acceptable risk profile
    * Some areas need improvement
    * Controls present but could be stronger
    * Minor gaps in documentation

    **Typical Actions**:

    * Address identified gaps
    * Strengthen weaker areas
    * Enhance monitoring in flagged categories
    * Quarterly risk reviews

    **Example Scenario**:
    A 3-year-old organic farm with growing sales but limited financial history, basic governance structures, and moderate climate adaptation measures scores 67/100.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="High Risk (26-50 points) - Orange">
    **Interpretation**:

    * Significant risk exposure identified
    * Multiple categories require attention
    * Controls insufficient or missing
    * Financial or operational vulnerabilities

    **Typical Actions**:

    * Develop mitigation plan immediately
    * Prioritize high-impact recommendations
    * Increase monitoring frequency
    * Consider additional support or training

    **Example Scenario**:
    A startup agricultural enterprise with limited track record, high debt, single-crop dependency, and minimal climate resilience scores 38/100.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Critical Risk (0-25 points) - Red">
    **Interpretation**:

    * Severe risk exposure across multiple areas
    * Business viability concerns
    * Major gaps in controls and documentation
    * Immediate intervention required

    **Typical Actions**:

    * Halt funding until risks addressed
    * Require comprehensive restructuring plan
    * Weekly monitoring and reporting
    * On-site assessment recommended

    **Example Scenario**:
    A business with negative cash flow, no formal governance, single buyer dependency, highly volatile input prices, and no climate adaptation strategy scores 18/100.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## Category-Level Risk Scores

### The 7 Risk Categories

Each assessment evaluates seven risk dimensions:

#### 1. Behavioral Risk

**What it measures**:

* Management capabilities and experience
* Decision-making processes
* Organizational culture
* Stakeholder relationships
* Commitment to sustainability

**Indicators** (5 subcategories):

* Leadership quality
* Team experience
* Stakeholder engagement
* Ethical practices
* Learning capacity

<Screenshot>
  **Behavioral Risk Card**
  Show: Card titled "Behavioral Risk" with score "72" and "Moderate" badge in yellow. Mini progress bar at 72%. "View Details" button at bottom.
</Screenshot>

#### 2. Operational Risk

**What it measures**:

* Production processes and efficiency
* Supply chain management
* Quality control systems
* Infrastructure adequacy
* Operational resilience

**Indicators**:

* Process reliability
* Supply chain stability
* Quality assurance
* Infrastructure condition
* Capacity utilization

#### 3. Financial Risk

**What it measures**:

* Revenue stability and growth
* Profitability and margins
* Cash flow management
* Debt levels and servicing
* Financial planning maturity

**Indicators**:

* Revenue diversification
* Profitability trends
* Liquidity position
* Leverage ratios
* Financial controls

<Note>
  **Critical Category**: Financial risk often has the highest weight in overall scoring. Strong financial performance can offset moderate risks in other areas.
</Note>

#### 4. Market Risk

**What it measures**:

* Market positioning and competition
* Customer concentration
* Price volatility exposure
* Market access barriers
* Demand stability

**Indicators**:

* Competitive advantage
* Customer diversification
* Pricing power
* Market accessibility
* Demand predictability

#### 5. Climate & Environmental Risk

**What it measures**:

* Climate change vulnerability
* Environmental compliance
* Resource sustainability
* Adaptation measures
* Environmental impact

**Indicators**:

* Climate exposure
* Adaptation capacity
* Environmental compliance
* Resource efficiency
* Sustainability practices

#### 6. Governance & Legal Risk

**What it measures**:

* Organizational structure and governance
* Legal compliance
* Regulatory adherence
* Contract management
* Dispute resolution

**Indicators**:

* Governance structure
* Regulatory compliance
* Legal standing
* Contract coverage
* Risk oversight

#### 7. Technology & Data Risk

**What it measures**:

* Technology adoption and integration
* Data management practices
* Cybersecurity measures
* Digital literacy
* Innovation capacity

**Indicators**:

* Technology infrastructure
* Data quality and security
* Digital skills
* System reliability
* Innovation adoption

### Viewing Category Details

Click **"View Details"** on any category card to see:

1. **Category Score**: Overall score for this dimension
2. **5 Subcategory Scores**: Individual indicator ratings
3. **Evidence Narrative**: AI explanation with citations
4. **Risk Factors**: Specific concerns identified
5. **Recommendations**: Targeted mitigation actions

<Screenshot>
  **Category Detail Expansion**
  Show: Expanded view showing "Financial Risk" header with score 58, five subcategory rows each with indicator name, score, and mini traffic-light badge. Evidence section below with expandable text.
</Screenshot>

## Subcategory Scores and Indicators

Each category contains **5 subcategory indicators** scored individually:

### Indicator Components

**Name**: Specific risk factor (e.g., "Revenue Diversification")

**Score**: 0-100 value for this indicator

**Level**: Traffic-light classification (Low/Moderate/High/Critical)

**Evidence**: Text explaining the score with document citations

**Mitigation**: Suggested actions to improve this indicator

### Example: Financial Risk Subcategories

| Indicator               | Score | Level    | Key Finding                                        |
| ----------------------- | ----- | -------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
| Revenue Diversification | 45    | HIGH     | Single crop (coffee) represents 87% of revenue     |
| Profitability Trends    | 62    | MODERATE | Margins improving but still below sector average   |
| Liquidity Position      | 38    | HIGH     | Current ratio of 0.8, insufficient working capital |
| Leverage Ratios         | 71    | MODERATE | Debt-to-equity at 1.2, manageable but high         |
| Financial Controls      | 55    | MODERATE | Basic accounting but no formal budgeting process   |

<Screenshot>
  **Subcategory Breakdown Table**
  Show: Table with 5 rows showing indicator names, scores, colored level badges, and brief evidence snippets. Each row expandable for full details.
</Screenshot>

## Evidence and Narratives

The AI generates **evidence narratives** explaining each score:

### Evidence Structure

**Components**:

1. **Summary statement**: Brief overall assessment
2. **Key findings**: Bulleted list of main observations
3. **Document citations**: References to source material (page numbers)
4. **Data points**: Specific metrics or facts extracted
5. **Risk implications**: How findings affect the score

### Example Evidence Narrative

```
Financial Risk - Revenue Diversification (Score: 45/100 - HIGH RISK)

The business shows significant revenue concentration risk. Analysis of 
the financial statements (p. 12-14) reveals:

• Coffee sales account for 87% of total revenue ($234K of $269K)
• Only two other revenue streams: vegetables (8%) and dairy (5%)
• No evidence of value-added products or processing
• Revenue from top customer represents 34% of total sales
• No contracts or agreements securing multi-year revenue

This concentration exposes the business to:
- Coffee price volatility (prices dropped 23% in 2025)
- Single-crop disease or pest risks
- Customer dependency vulnerabilities
- Seasonal cash flow gaps

Immediate diversification is recommended to reduce financial vulnerability.
```

### Interpreting Citations

**Document references** appear as:

* `(p. 12-14)` - Pages 12 through 14 of uploaded PDF
* `(Business Plan, Section 3)` - Specific section reference
* `(Financial Statements 2025, Income Statement)` - Document and table

Click citations to jump to the source document (if enabled).

<Note>
  **AI Limitations**: Evidence is extracted automatically. Always verify critical findings against source documents, especially for high-stakes decisions.
</Note>

## Recommendations

Each category and subcategory includes **actionable recommendations**:

### Recommendation Structure

**Priority**: HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW

**Text**: Specific action to take

**Impact**: Expected effect on risk score

**Timeframe**: Suggested implementation timeline

### Priority Levels

| Priority   | Badge Color | Meaning                                | Typical Timeframe        |
| ---------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------ |
| **HIGH**   | Red         | Critical action, addresses severe risk | Immediate (0-30 days)    |
| **MEDIUM** | Orange      | Important improvement, material impact | Short-term (1-3 months)  |
| **LOW**    | Yellow      | Enhancement opportunity, minor impact  | Medium-term (3-6 months) |

### Example Recommendations

<Screenshot>
  **Recommendations List**
  Show: Three recommendation cards stacked vertically. First has red "HIGH" badge with text "Diversify revenue streams by introducing at least 2 new product lines within 90 days". Second has orange "MEDIUM" badge. Third has yellow "LOW" badge. Each shows expected impact and timeframe.
</Screenshot>

**Sample HIGH priority recommendation**:

```
Priority: HIGH
Category: Financial Risk - Revenue Diversification

Recommendation:
"Develop and launch at least two new revenue streams within 90 days 
to reduce dependency on coffee sales. Consider value-added processing 
(coffee roasting), complementary crops (avocados, macadamia), or 
agritourism services."

Expected Impact: +8 to +12 points in Revenue Diversification score
Timeframe: 0-90 days
Cost: Low to moderate (seed capital for new products)
```

### Editing Recommendations

Administrators can edit recommendations:

1. Click **"Edit"** next to any recommendation
2. Modify the text to add context or local specifics
3. Save changes
4. Edited recommendations show a "(Edited)" tag
5. Original AI text is preserved in history

## Radar Chart Visualization

The **radar chart** provides a visual overview of category scores:

<Screenshot>
  **Risk Radar Chart**
  Show: Heptagonal (7-sided) radar chart with each corner labeled with a risk category name. Filled area shows scores for each category, creating an irregular shape. Legend shows category names and colors.
</Screenshot>

### Reading the Radar Chart

**Axes**: Each of the 7 corners represents a risk category

**Scale**: 0 (center) to 100 (outer edge)

**Filled area**: Shows actual scores across categories

**Shape interpretation**:

* **Balanced shape**: Consistent performance across categories
* **Irregular shape**: Strengths and weaknesses in different areas
* **Small shape**: High overall risk (low scores)
* **Large shape**: Low overall risk (high scores)

### Spotting Patterns

**Indented corners**: Categories with lower scores (higher risk)

* Focus improvement efforts here
* May drag down overall score
* Review subcategory details for root causes

**Extended corners**: Categories with higher scores (lower risk)

* Strengths to leverage
* May indicate mature controls
* Potential to share best practices

## Executive Summary

The **Executive Summary** section provides a high-level overview suitable for stakeholders:

### Summary Components

**Overall Assessment**: 2-3 sentence business characterization

**Key Strengths**: 3-5 bullet points highlighting low-risk areas

**Primary Concerns**: 3-5 bullet points on high-risk areas

**Critical Actions**: Top 3 recommendations (HIGH priority only)

**Risk Outlook**: Forward-looking statement on risk trajectory

### Example Executive Summary

```
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sunrise Agro Ltd. - Q1 2026 Risk Assessment

Overall Risk Score: 58/100 (MODERATE RISK)

Sunrise Agro is a growing organic farm cooperative with promising 
operations but significant financial and market risks requiring 
attention. The business demonstrates strong governance and environmental 
practices but faces revenue concentration and cash flow challenges.

KEY STRENGTHS:
✓ Well-established governance structure with active board oversight
✓ Strong environmental compliance and sustainability practices
✓ Experienced management team with deep agricultural expertise
✓ Diversified supplier base reducing input cost risks
✓ Growing market demand for organic products

PRIMARY CONCERNS:
⚠ High revenue concentration in coffee (87% of sales)
⚠ Insufficient working capital (current ratio 0.8)
⚠ Single major customer represents 34% of revenue
⚠ Limited climate adaptation measures despite exposure
⚠ No formal financial planning or budgeting process

CRITICAL ACTIONS (Next 90 Days):
1. Develop revenue diversification plan with 2+ new product lines
2. Secure working capital facility to improve liquidity position
3. Implement formal budgeting and cash flow forecasting

RISK OUTLOOK:
With targeted interventions in financial management and revenue 
diversification, Sunrise Agro has potential to reduce risk profile 
to LOW (75+) within 12 months. Current trajectory without action 
likely leads to increased financial stress.
```

<Screenshot>
  **Executive Summary View**
  Show: Clean document-style layout with heading, overall score prominently displayed, followed by bulleted strengths (with checkmarks), concerns (with warning icons), and numbered critical actions. Professional, printable format.
</Screenshot>

## Comparing Assessments

Track risk evolution over time:

### Accessing Historical Assessments

1. View all assessments for a company on the dashboard
2. Filter by company name to see timeline
3. Compare scores quarter-over-quarter or year-over-year

### Key Comparison Metrics

**Score trends**:

* Is overall risk increasing or decreasing?
* Which categories show improvement?
* Which categories are deteriorating?

**Recommendation completion**:

* Were previous HIGH priority actions taken?
* Did scores improve as expected?
* What new risks emerged?

**Version comparison**:

* How has the business evolved?
* Are controls strengthening?
* Is documentation improving?

<Note>
  **Trend Analysis**: The platform doesn't currently include automated trend charts, but you can manually track scores in a spreadsheet for longitudinal analysis.
</Note>

## Taking Action on Results

<Steps>
  ### Review with Stakeholders

  **Key audiences**:

  * Business owners/managers
  * Investment committee
  * Risk management team
  * Technical advisors

  **Discussion points**:

  * Overall risk level and implications
  * Category-specific findings
  * Priority recommendations
  * Implementation timeline
  * Resource requirements

  ### Develop Mitigation Plan

  Based on recommendations:

  1. **Prioritize actions** by impact and feasibility
  2. **Assign owners** for each recommendation
  3. **Set deadlines** aligned with priority levels
  4. **Allocate budget** for implementation
  5. **Define success metrics** to track improvement

  ### Monitor Progress

  **Quarterly reviews**:

  * Check recommendation implementation status
  * Update assessment with new information
  * Re-score to measure improvement
  * Adjust mitigation plan as needed

  ### Export and Share

  Use the **"Download Report"** button to:

  * Generate PDF report for stakeholders
  * Include all scores, evidence, and recommendations
  * Share with investment committees
  * Maintain compliance documentation
</Steps>

## Best Practices

<Accordion title="Interpreting Scores in Context">
  * Compare against sector benchmarks when available
  * Consider business stage (startup vs. established)
  * Account for external factors (market conditions, climate events)
  * Review trends over time, not just absolute scores
  * Balance quantitative scores with qualitative judgment
</Accordion>

<Accordion title="Using Evidence Effectively">
  * Always verify critical findings in source documents
  * Look for patterns across multiple evidence points
  * Consider data freshness (recent vs. outdated information)
  * Flag evidence gaps for follow-up with business
  * Use citations in discussions to maintain credibility
</Accordion>

<Accordion title="Acting on Recommendations">
  * Focus on HIGH priority items first
  * Group related recommendations for efficiency
  * Involve business owners in implementation planning
  * Set realistic timelines based on capacity
  * Track completion and measure impact
  * Reassess after major changes
</Accordion>

## Next Steps

* [Download and customize assessment reports →](/user-guides/reports)
* [Share findings with stakeholders →](/user-guides/collaboration)
* [Track recommendation implementation →](/user-guides/action-tracking)
* [Create follow-up assessments →](/guides/creating-assessments)