• Revolutionary:  Experiment results will significantly advance knowledge in a specific scientific/technology field. Very high probability of publication in a leading scientific journal and/or very high probability of technological/societal impact*.  (1) 
• Significant:  The outcome of the proposed research will advance knowledge in a specific scientific/technology field. High probability of publication in a leading scientific journal and/or high probability of technological/societal impact*.  (2)
• Important:  Experiment results likely to produce incremental scientific/technological advances. Likely probability of publication in a non-leading scientific journal and/or some technological/societal impact*.  (3)
• Minimal:  The experiment results will not significantly impact a specific scientific/technology field. Publication may or may not result from this research and/or minimal technological/societal impact*.  (4)
• Insignificant:  Results not likely to make contributions to understanding of fundamental or applied fields. Publication not likely and/or no technological/societal impact*.  (5)

• Very High Quality:  Planned experiment demonstrates clear viability*, optimal understanding of facility resources and experimental team and their resources are above average.  Data analysis strategy is very well thought out.  (1)
• High Quality:  Planned experiment is well thought out, viable*, and experimental team and their resources are adequate. Data analysis strategy is sound.  (2)
• Moderate:  Planned experiment is viable* but team would benefit from collaboration with facility staff.  (3)
• Below Average:  Research planning, resources, and/or data analysis strategy is lacking some important details.  (4)
• Poor:  Research plan is not well thought out.  (5)

• Essential: The unique characteristics of the facility resources are shown to be essential for the success of the proposed work. (1)
• Important: The unique characteristics of the facility resources are important for the success of the proposed work (2)
• Beneficial: The proposed work will likely benefit from the use of the unique facility resources. (3)
• Not required: The proposed work does not take advantage of unique facility resources.  (4)

NOTE: One rating is chosen in each area; the overall score is calculated based on a weighted average of scores.

The scores of unallocated proposals are "aged" or improved at each cycle as part of the allocation process. If a proposal was not allocated time in the previous cycle, its score is improved by 0.2. This is done a maximum of two times, for a maximum improvment of 0.4.

* Viability is based on pure, intrinsic limitations of the proposed technique (not the capability of the beamline).
Technological impact can include impact to applied fields, industry, and/or industrial processes.
Societal impact can include education, training, and outreach activities.