Best-relative scorecard: retained CMPs and fixed-catch reference

Reference, recruitment crash and recruitment cycle

Return to the working paper. Near-term trade-off and Kobe plots.

Choose an operating model (OM), stock component, candidate management procedures (CMPs) and indicators. Set how much weight each indicator receives. Scores compare the selected CMPs; managers can use them to explore their priorities and assess performance alongside agreed biological requirements.

NoteBest-relative weighting version

This alternative version weights each CMP relative to the best performer within each performance indicator (PI) and selects that method by default.¹ The weights applied across PIs are still selected separately. The original range-weight scorecard remains available for comparison.

For a lower-is-better indicator with a best value of zero, zero-valued CMPs score 100 and positive values score zero. Advice reductions greater than 19% pool all valid annual HCR-advice comparisons across all 500 iterations. The first advice is compared with the saved HCR initialization (the constant target for fixed catch). No biomass or near-20% exclusions apply. The demonstrations show the reference OM, recruitment crash (OM11_2), and recruitment cycle (OM11_3).

Operating model

Choose an OM Stock component

Within-PI CMP weighting

Range weights (original method) Best-relative CMP weights

This method gives the best CMP a weight of 100 for each PI and weights other CMPs proportionally.

Weights across PIs

Equal weights Balanced fishing and stock condition Dispersion weighted (square-root CV) Specify weights manually

CMPs

Performance metrics

CMP relative trade-off scores

Selected weights across PIs

Performance quilt

Each cell shows the raw PI value, followed on the next line by its parenthesized within-PI CMP weight (W); for example, (98.2) means W = 98.2. Purple indicates lower and light lavender higher relative performance.

Footnotes

1. For each PI \(x\), the best-performing CMP among the \(N\) selected CMPs is assigned a weight of 100. For a PI where higher values are preferred, CMP \(i\) receives \(W_{i,x}=100\,V_{i,x}/V_{\mathrm{best},x}\), where \(V_{\mathrm{best},x}=\max_j(V_{j,x})\). For a PI where lower values are preferred, the calculation is: \(W_{i,x}=100\,V_{\mathrm{best},x}/V_{i,x}\), where \(V_{\mathrm{best},x}=\min_j(V_{j,x})\). Thus the best CMP has \(W_{i,x}=100\), while the other weights retain their proportional contrast with the best observed value. The weights are recalculated whenever the selected CMP set changes; they express performance relative to the selected CMPs. Biological acceptability requires a separately agreed threshold.