1 The One-Minute Version
Dr. Rob shipped a small but important correction to how we describe the PHIT Score — our proprietary index for community-health readiness. This is not a new page to build. It is a doctrine fix: it aligns the words in our master strategy document with the math already running live in the PHIT Scorecard.
For a while we had two competing definitions living side by side. The strategy doc described a 5-part score adding to 100%; the live Scorecard ran a 6-part equation. The difference mattered: the strategy version accidentally hid the single biggest lever we control — Force-for-Health Activation (F), worth 35%.
The update makes the live equation the single source of truth. Every downstream product — the Scorecard, the ROI Calculator, the SDOH Module, the CRM, the Project Manager, the Pathway Engine — now quotes one equation without re-deriving it. And the Chamber of Health Director's "follow the money" story is restored to the narrative.
2 What the PHIT Score Is
The PHIT Score is to community health what a credit score is to financial health, or the S&P 500 is to market health: a composite, weighted index blending publicly available population-health data with The Force for Health's own proprietary engagement and outcomes data. It is the standard unit of measurement at the center of the "Bloomberg Terminal for Population Health" vision.
The score runs 0–100 and sorts every community into one of five readiness tiers:
| Tier | Score | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0 – 20 | Severe gaps in infrastructure, literacy, and engagement. Urgent intervention needed. |
| At Risk | 21 – 40 | Significant deficiencies. Priorities largely unaddressed by current programs. |
| Developing | 41 – 60 | Foundational systems in place. Priorities identified but engagement and outcomes lagging. |
| Strong | 61 – 80 | Active engagement, measurable outcomes, literacy above national average. |
| Exemplary | 81 – 100 | Model community. Priorities actively addressed; data shows measurable improvement. |
3 What Changed
Before — two definitions in conflict. The strategy doc described PHIT as a 5-component weighted sum that summed to 100%:
| Component (old 5-part view) | Weight (old) |
|---|---|
| Community Health Baseline | 30% |
| Health System Capacity | 15% |
| SHIP / CHNA Alignment | 20% |
| Engagement & Literacy | 20% |
| Outcomes & Impact | 15% |
That conflicted with the canonical 6-letter equation already wired into the live Scorecard. The 5-part view was really the same H/C/A/E/O block renormalized to 100% as if F didn't exist — leaving the Director's dominant 35% lever invisible.
After — six components at canonical absolute weights:
| Component | Letter | Weight | Block |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Health Baseline | H | 20% | Gov data |
| Health System Capacity | C | 10% | Gov data |
| SHIP / CHNA Alignment | A | 15% | Gov data |
| Engagement & Literacy | E | 10% | Gov data |
| Outcomes & Impact | O | 10% | Gov data |
| Force for Health Activation | F | 35% | FFH engagement |
4 The F Lever — Why 35% Matters
F (Force for Health Activation) is the only component a Chamber of Health Director directly activates. The other five are largely set by census, claims, and clinical-capacity data we don't control. F is where our platform, our coins, and our community actually move the number — which is exactly why it carries the dominant 35% weight. F rolls up five sub-domains:
| Sub-domain | Name | What rolls up |
|---|---|---|
| F₁ | Individual Activation | Member, ambassador, group-leader, and director counts by tier |
| F₂ | Learn It Coins | Bingo, courses, Train the Brain games, simulations, specialty certs |
| F₃ | Live It Coins | Tracker engagement, streaks, 360° Explorer adoption |
| F₄ | Share It Score | Drops, events, media channels, campaigns |
| F₅ | Pre / Post Deltas | Assessment growth, behavior change, retention |
5 Why It Matters for the Business
- Single source of truth. The live Scorecard equation bar is now the canonical reference the strategy doc points to — no more drift between the deck and the product.
- Restored narrative. The Director's "follow the money" story (F = 0.35) is back in the strategy, making gamified engagement the headline lever, not a footnote.
- Clean downstream quoting. PHIT Priority SDOH Module, CRM, Project Manager, ROI Calculator, and Pathway Engine all quote one equation without re-deriving it.
- Investor & grant ready. One defensible, consistent methodology to cite in NIH / CDC / HRSA / foundation applications and in the white-label / licensing revenue model.
6 Philosophy, Not a Page — Recommended Handling
Lucy's read is right: this is methodology, not a deployable feature. Treat the canonical equation as doctrine that governs every PHIT surface, and keep it visible without spinning up a standalone marketing page. Concretely:
- Adopt the v2 doc (
PHIT-Systems-Data-Hub-Strategy-v2-canonical-weights.docx) as the drop-in replacement for the prior strategy doc; keep the original for diff/audit. - Make the equation bar the canon everywhere it appears (Scorecard, ROI Calculator) so the UI and the doctrine never diverge again.
- Optional methodology note — a short, branded "How the PHIT Score is calculated" explainer (this HTML companion) can live inside PHIT Systems if you and Rob want a public-facing reference.
- Hold the ledger surfaces until you both decide whether this becomes a published page. A deploy script is staged and ready if you green-light it.
7 · Decisions to Make Together
- Confirm canon. Do we lock PHIT = 0.20·H + 0.10·C + 0.15·A + 0.10·E + 0.10·O + 0.35·F as the official, frozen equation (methodology v2)?
- Publish or keep internal? Should the methodology explainer be a public PHIT Systems page, or internal reference only?
- Companion architecture memo. Rob flagged that the merge analysis behind this edit (SDOH slot-map, Ripple architecture, conflict log) is not yet packaged. Do we want that next?
- Gamification wiring. If F is the dominant lever, do we wire the F₁–F₅ roll-up to Supabase so a community's coins visibly move its live PHIT Score?