The MetaFrazo Governance Score

The MetaFrazo Governance Score is a single number, from 0 to 100, that tells you how consistently work in your Jira workspace follows good governance practice. One score, computed the same way everywhere it appears — so the figure you see on a Risk dashboard, an Executive summary, and a Compliance view all mean the same thing.

Higher is better. As a rule of thumb:

• 80–100 (green) — healthy. Work is following your governance expectations.
• 60–79 (amber) — worth a look. Some dimensions are slipping.
• Below 60 (red) — needs attention. One or more dimensions are well off baseline.

What it measures

The score blends four dimensions, each looked at on its own 0–100 scale and then combined into the single headline number:

• Workflow discipline — are changes going through your tracked workflow and leaving a record, rather than happening off to the side?
• Accountability — is the work attributable to a known person, rather than appearing without a clear actor?
• Configuration stability — is the project's setup steady, rather than churning in ways that make history hard to trust?
• Control coverage — did resolved work actually pass the controls you'd expect (for example, effort recorded and required steps not skipped), rather than being closed in an uncontrolled way?

Each dimension is derived entirely from the events your Jira workspace produces from the moment you connect MetaFrazo forward — the same who-did-what-and-when record described in Data isolation. Because the four dimensions are also surfaced on their own, a low overall score is always explainable: you can see which dimension is pulling it down and act on that.

How it's calculated

For each project, and for each time window (a day or a week, depending on the chart), MetaFrazo looks at the relevant events, scores each of the four dimensions from 0 to 100, and combines them into the single Governance Score. A project that has no activity in a window simply doesn't get a score for that window.

We deliberately keep the exact weighting and per-dimension method proprietary — it's part of what makes the score a fair, hard-to-game measure rather than a number anyone can reverse-engineer and optimise against. What we commit to is that the method is consistent (the same inputs always produce the same score), transparent in its inputs (the four dimensions above, all drawn from your own event history), and stable over time (we don't quietly change what "good" means underneath you; material changes are noted in your dashboards' update history).

Where you'll see it

The same Governance Score appears across the product:

• On Risk views, as the latest and the day-by-day score, so you can spot when a trend turned.
• On Executive views, as the portfolio-wide average — the single best read on whether governance is holding up across projects.
• On Compliance views, as the weekly score per project and a project leaderboard.

What it is — and isn't

It is an objective, trend-able, cross-project measure of governance practice, computed only from your own Jira activity, that you can put in front of an auditor or a leadership team.

It is not a certification or a pass/fail compliance verdict, and it doesn't claim your organization is compliant with any particular regulation. It measures what your Jira events can evidence — see GDPR, NIS2, DORA — what does MetaFrazo give me? for how that evidence maps to common audit questions.