Weighted prioritisation scores are guesses wearing a suit. This runs your scoring thousands of times with the weights and scores wobbled, and tells you which ranks survive — and which are noise you shouldn't argue about.
One row per initiative: name, then 4 numbers (Value, Time criticality, Risk reduction, Effort). Tabs, commas, or markdown-table pipes all work — paste straight from Excel, Sheets, or a doc. Replaces the current table.
Add initiatives and scores above. The result isn't a ranking — it's how much of the ranking you can trust.
Paste two priority orders, one item per line — yours vs a stakeholder's, last quarter's vs this one's, the framework's vs your gut. Items are matched by name; ranks are compared over the shared set.
Frameworks like RICE and WSJF produce a ranked list from scores nobody believes to one decimal place. The ranking inherits that false precision — and teams burn hours debating whether the weight on "time criticality" should be 2 or 3, when the honest question is whether the answer would change either way. This tool asks exactly that: it re-runs your scoring 4,000 times, wobbling every weight (±50% as a 90% interval — occasional draws go further) and every score (within ±1 point; both dials sit under the table), then reports how often each initiative lands where. Ranks that hold across the wobble are real signal; ranks that reshuffle are ties — decide those on strategy, sequencing, or gut, and stop pretending the spreadsheet decided.
The idea is plain sensitivity analysis applied to decision frameworks — see Douglas Hubbard's How to Measure Anything on modelling what you're unsure about, and Itamar Gilad on ICE scores — even scoring's defenders read the numbers as hints to be qualified by confidence, not answers.