Rank new project requests against your portfolio criteria

Score and rank the project requests below against our criteria, for {{decision_makers}} to use at {{decision_meeting}}, so they can see why each request lands where it does before deciding what to fund. The ranking is an input to their decision, not the decision.

Project requests (one per entry, with whatever each includes: sponsor, goal, cost, effort, dates, benefits):
"""
{{requests}}
"""

Our scoring criteria and weights:
"""
{{criteria}}
"""

Capacity and budget available this period: {{capacity}}
Strategic priorities for the period: {{priorities}}

Produce:
1. A scoring table with one row per request and the columns Request, a score from 1 to 5 for each criterion, Weighted total, Evidence (the fact from the request behind each score, in a few words).
2. The ranking, highest weighted total first, with a line showing where the available capacity or budget runs out, so the cut-off is visible.
3. Close calls: requests within {{close_call_margin}} of each other or of the cut-off line, and what would change their order.
4. Dependencies and conflicts: requests that need each other, or compete for the same people or systems.
5. Missing information: for each request, what is needed to score it with more confidence, and who to ask.

Score only from what each request says, and where a criterion asks about strategic fit, judge it against the priorities above. A good scoring table lets a reader see the evidence for every number, so a sponsor who disagrees can point to the exact fact. Give the same score to the same evidence across requests, and do not reward a request for being longer or better written.

For example, the form of one Evidence cell: "Cost 2: estimate is three times this period's spare budget". This example shows the form only.

Do not invent costs, benefits or dates, and do not add criteria of your own. If a request gives nothing for a criterion, write ? instead of a score, show its weighted total as a range from the lowest to the highest possible score on that criterion, and list it under Missing information, so the gap stays visible instead of being averaged away. If the criteria or weights are unclear, such as weights that do not add up to 100 percent, say so at the top and show how the ranking changes under each reading.