{"name":"UK SME AI Readiness Index","methodology_version":"1.2","founding_rule":"The Index scores a company's public footprint, not the company. A firm can be strong internally and score low here; the score describes only what is publicly visible.","summary":"Each organisation is scored 0-100 on five dimensions of AI readiness, read from material the organisation has published in public. Every score that is published carries at least one source URL.","anchor_scores":[25,45,65,85],"dimensions":[{"key":"prompting","label":"Prompting","field":"dim_prompting","description":"How the organisation communicates with AI systems — the context, structure and constraints it gives them.","public_signals":"Published prompts, prompt guidance, prompt libraries, documented AI briefing practice.","scale":"0-100, or null when there is insufficient public signal","evidence_window_months":24,"improvement_path":"The step from 45 to 65 is naming AI skills or tools in job adverts, or publishing guidance for staff on using AI. Reaching 85 takes specific AI requirements across more than one role, alongside evidence of internal training or published usage standards.","anchors":[{"score":25,"descriptor":"Footprint examined, no AI-skill signal found anywhere in it, including live job adverts."},{"score":45,"descriptor":"Generic claims about AI capability, with no specifics behind them."},{"score":65,"descriptor":"Job adverts name AI skills or tools, or the organisation has published staff guidance on using AI."},{"score":85,"descriptor":"Multiple roles carry specific AI requirements, alongside evidence of internal training or published usage standards."}]},{"key":"tooling","label":"Tooling","field":"dim_tooling","description":"Which AI tools the organisation uses and how deliberately it selects them.","public_signals":"Named tools in job adverts, engineering blogs, case studies, integration and partner listings.","scale":"0-100, or null when there is insufficient public signal","evidence_window_months":24,"improvement_path":"The step from 45 to 65 is naming the specific tools in use and tying them to the functions that use them, rather than mentioning AI tooling in general. Reaching 85 takes named tools across more than one function, with integrations or builds referenced.","anchors":[{"score":25,"descriptor":"No tools named anywhere in an examined footprint."},{"score":45,"descriptor":"One generic mention of AI tooling, with nothing named."},{"score":65,"descriptor":"Specific tools named and tied to the functions that use them."},{"score":85,"descriptor":"Multiple named tools across more than one function, with integrations or builds referenced."}]},{"key":"workflow","label":"Workflow Integration","field":"dim_workflow","description":"How far AI is embedded in routine work rather than used ad hoc.","public_signals":"Descriptions of AI-assisted processes, product changelogs, internal-tooling write-ups, role definitions.","scale":"0-100, or null when there is insufficient public signal","evidence_window_months":24,"improvement_path":"The step from 45 to 65 is describing at least one concrete process or offering with AI in the loop, rather than claiming AI enhancement without a mechanism. Reaching 85 takes AI embedded across several described workflows.","anchors":[{"score":25,"descriptor":"No AI appears in any described process."},{"score":45,"descriptor":"\"AI-enhanced\" claims with no mechanism described."},{"score":65,"descriptor":"At least one concrete described process or offering with AI in the loop."},{"score":85,"descriptor":"AI embedded across several described workflows."}]},{"key":"judgement","label":"Critical Judgement","field":"dim_judgement","description":"How the organisation evaluates AI output — checking accuracy, handling error, and deciding when not to use AI.","public_signals":"Published AI policies, review and escalation processes, risk or assurance statements, disclosure notes.","scale":"0-100, or null when there is insufficient public signal","evidence_window_months":24,"improvement_path":"The step from 45 to 65 is publishing an AI or data policy, disclosing where AI is used, or stating a human-review practice, rather than carrying a boilerplate responsible-AI line. Reaching 85 takes a substantive policy alongside disclosure and honest statements about limits.","anchors":[{"score":25,"descriptor":"AI claims are made but no policy, disclosure or oversight statement appears anywhere, or visibly unedited AI-generated content has been published."},{"score":45,"descriptor":"A boilerplate responsible-AI line and nothing further."},{"score":65,"descriptor":"A published AI or data policy, or disclosure of AI use, or a stated human-review practice."},{"score":85,"descriptor":"A substantive policy, plus disclosure, plus honest statements about limits."}]},{"key":"confidence","label":"Confidence & Momentum","field":"dim_confidence","description":"The organisation's stated confidence with AI and the direction of travel over time.","public_signals":"Hiring patterns, training commitments, roadmap statements, repeated public updates on AI work.","scale":"0-100, or null when there is insufficient public signal","evidence_window_months":12,"improvement_path":"The step from 45 to 65 is a regular pattern of AI-related output across the last twelve months, rather than sporadic mentions. Reaching 85 takes that cadence plus a stated direction — leadership statements, successive hires, an evolving offering.","anchors":[{"score":25,"descriptor":"AI mentions exist, but nothing new in twelve months or more."},{"score":45,"descriptor":"Sporadic AI-related output, with no pattern to it."},{"score":65,"descriptor":"Regular AI-related output over the last twelve months."},{"score":85,"descriptor":"A sustained cadence plus a direction — leadership statements, successive hires, an evolving offering."}]}],"bands":[{"name":"Exploring","min":0,"max":59,"description":"Public signal shows early or occasional AI use, without a settled pattern."},{"name":"Applying","min":60,"max":79,"description":"Public signal shows AI used in repeatable ways across more than one area of work."},{"name":"Advanced","min":80,"max":100,"description":"Public signal shows AI embedded in routine work, with stated review practice."}],"rules":{"minimum_evidence_items":2,"self_published_cap":65,"min_scored_dimensions_for_overall":3,"review_period_months":6,"examined_and_silent_applies_to":["prompting","tooling","workflow"],"not_assessable_without_ai_claims":["judgement","confidence"],"evidence_window_months":{"standard":24,"momentum":12},"statements":[{"key":"evidence_window","title":"Evidence windows","statement":"Evidence for Prompting, Tooling, Workflow Integration and Critical Judgement must have been published or updated within 24 months of the date it was read. Confidence & Momentum reads a 12-month window, because it is about direction of travel rather than what exists."},{"key":"examined_and_silent","title":"Examined and silent is a finding","statement":"A footprint that was examined and found to say nothing on Prompting, Tooling and Workflow Integration scores 25 on that dimension, and the URLs that were examined are cited as the evidence. Silence that was actually looked for is a finding, not a gap."},{"key":"thin_or_dormant","title":"A thin footprint is not a low score","statement":"A footprint too thin or too dormant to examine is different. That dimension is published as null and labelled \"insufficient public signal\". It is never given a low score, because there was nothing to read rather than nothing to find."},{"key":"not_assessable_without_claims","title":"No AI claims means two dimensions are not assessable","statement":"Where an examined footprint makes no AI claims of any kind, Critical Judgement and Confidence & Momentum are not assessable and return null — a company is not scored on governing or sustaining activity it does not claim to have. \"Examined and silent\" scoring at 25 applies only to Prompting, Tooling and Workflow Integration."},{"key":"minimum_evidence","title":"Two independent items, minimum","statement":"A dimension carries a score only when at least 2 independent evidence items support it. One item is an observation; it is not a score."},{"key":"self_published_cap","title":"Self-published evidence caps a dimension at 65","statement":"Evidence published by the organisation about itself can take a dimension no higher than 65. Above that, at least one third-party source is required — a job board, a partner listing, a press or industry write-up, a public repository."},{"key":"overall_score","title":"How the overall score is formed","statement":"The overall score is the mean of the dimensions that carry a score. Dimensions published as null are left out of the mean rather than counted as zero, and no overall score is published at all unless at least 3 dimensions are scored."},{"key":"dated_and_versioned","title":"Every score is dated and versioned","statement":"Each record carries the date it was scored and the methodology version used. A re-score updates that date and republishes the evidence behind it. Scores are not edited silently."},{"key":"review_due","title":"Every score carries a review-due date","statement":"Every published score carries a review-due date six months after scored_at. Scores past review are marked \"review overdue\" until rescored. Evidence links may age; the dates disclose this."},{"key":"rescore_pledge","title":"Rescores are free and unconditional","statement":"Rescores are free, on request, for any company, and are never conditional on purchasing anything from Nikksi. A company that improves independently is rescored on identical terms to a client. The evidence standard never varies."}]},"review_policy":{"review_period_months":6,"overdue_label":"review overdue","note":"Every published score carries a review-due date 6 months after scored_at, derived from that date rather than stored. A record past its review date is flagged \"review overdue\" and keeps its last published score until it is re-scored. Evidence links may age between reviews; the dates on a record disclose how old the reading is."},"evidence_rules":["Every published claim carries a public source URL that anyone can open and check.","Scores are read from an organisation's public footprint. Nikksi does not use private or purchased data for this Index.","A dimension with insufficient public signal is published as null and labelled \"insufficient public signal\". It is never estimated, inferred or filled in.","Scoring describes what a public footprint shows at the time it was read. It is an observation of published material, not an audit of the organisation.","Any organisation can request removal from the Index. Removal takes effect on the next request, without needing to prove identity."],"null_dimension_label":"insufficient public signal","removal":{"endpoint":"/api/v1/readiness/{slug}/remove","method":"POST","description":"Any organisation can ask to be taken out of the Index. The request is unauthenticated, and the page and JSON record stop resolving from the next request onwards."},"rescore":{"endpoint":"/api/v1/readiness/{slug}/rescore","method":"POST","description":"Anyone can ask for a published record to be looked at again. The request is unauthenticated and is queued for a person to review; it does not change the record or its score."},"licence":"CC BY 4.0 — attribution with a link to nikksi.com required","cite_as":"https://www.nikksi.com/readiness-index","links":{"index":"https://www.nikksi.com/api/v1/readiness-index","openapi":"https://www.nikksi.com/api/v1/openapi.json","human_index":"https://www.nikksi.com/readiness-index","human_methodology":"https://www.nikksi.com/readiness-index/methodology"}}