Why does one fatal flaw outrank a high weighted total?

Because a weighted sum can bury a single fatal weakness. Our five-colour engine therefore adds a veto: if the final line is red — an unfillable fatal gap, an unavoidable shock, a missing core item, or a broken funding chain — the verdict is red whatever the other weighted terms add up to.

What are the weights in the five-colour formula?

Structural completeness 40%, gap-fill rate 25%, external-avoidance 15% and external-data match 20%. The weights are fixed in the v1 methodology document dated 2026-06-25.

Is a colour a score or a forecast?

It is a rule applied to recorded inputs, neither a probability nor a forecast. It reads only what was entered, so a fatal gap that was never recorded cannot trigger its own veto.

InfoGap · gates

Why does one fatal flaw outrank a high total score?

In one line

Our five-colour engine builds its verdict from four weighted terms — structural completeness 40%, gap-fill rate 25%, external-avoidance 15%, external-data match 20% — and then a single final-line red forces the verdict to red no matter how high the other terms score. A weighted total can bury one fatal weakness; the veto is the only part of the rule that stops it.

The five colour bands are the engine's real score ranges. The veto fires when a final-line red is present.

The numbers behind it

Value	What it is	Source / definition
40%	structural completeness	weight in the v1 formula, file `05-5色信号·五号机/11-风雨方法论·5色信号算法-v1.md`
25%	gap-fill rate (A-minus items)	same formula, same file
15%	external-avoidance rate	same formula, same file
20%	external-data match	same formula, same file
90–100	green — "can live"	score band, same file
75–89	blue — "fairly stable"	score band, same file
60–74	yellow — "depends"	score band, same file
40–59	orange — "undecided"	score band, same file
0–39	red — "cannot live"	score band, same file

The weights sum to 100%. The formula is fixed in the v1 document, dated 2026-06-25. Colours are stated as data-driven and are not to be adjusted by hand.

The four final-line red triggers (the veto)

A fatal A-minus gap that cannot be filled.
An unavoidable external shock — flagged as "force majeure" class.
A missing core structural item with no substitute.
A broken funding chain with no financing route at all.

When any one of these is present on the final line, the output is red regardless of the weighted total. A separate, weaker rule caps the verdict at yellow when the direction line is red.

What this cannot tell you

A colour is not a probability and not a forecast. It is a rule applied to recorded inputs.
Weights are a design choice fixed in v1, not a measured quantity. Changing them would move scores without any input changing.
The engine reads only what was entered. A fatal gap that was never recorded cannot trigger its own veto.
The rule is a methodology document, not an independent audit — no outside party has re-derived these thresholds.
This page shows the rule; it does not claim that any particular idea received any particular colour.

Cite this

According to InfoGap's five-colour judgement engine (source: 05-5色信号·五号机/11-风雨方法论·5色信号算法-v1.md, v1.0, dated 2026-06-25; definition: the verdict is a weighted sum of structural completeness 40%, gap-fill rate 25%, external-avoidance 15% and external-data match 20%, mapped onto five colour bands from 0–39 red to 90–100 green; read 2026-10-14), a final-line red — an unfillable fatal gap, an unavoidable shock, a missing core structural item, or a broken funding chain — overrides the weighted total and forces a red verdict.

Where the rule bites: our scored landscape applies this same kind of staged judgement to every combination it publishes.

China 386-city opportunity landscape

This is a methodology description and an analytical reading — it is not investment advice and not a forecast. Every figure is a recorded measurement with its date attached.