43/100
Current Site Health
How reliably the site serves visitors and the business today. A weak score identifies a problem; it does not automatically mean “rebuild.”
Illustrative only · fictional example
RESCUE
SCORECARD.
Not a black-box grade. This example shows how Atlas McDowell separates the condition of a site today from the question of whether repair is a responsible investment.
THE TWO NUMBERS
74/100
Repair Viability
Whether a controlled repair is likely to be safer and more sensible than rebuilding, based on evidence—not optimism.
EXAMPLE: CURRENT SITE HEALTH
Evidence areaWeightRating
Ownership & recoverability204/5
Lead path & conversion202/5
Technical stability152/5
Security & update safety151/5
Mobile & usability102/5
Content & trust103/5
Search discoverability52/5
Measurement & operability51/5
Each rating is 0–5 and supported by a written observation and selected examples. Contribution = (rating ÷ 5) × weight.
EXAMPLE: REPAIR VIABILITY
Decision factorWeightRating
Control can be restored205/5
Useful assets can be retained204/5
Platform has usable remaining life153/5
Stabilization risk is manageable153/5
Repair is economical versus rebuild304/5
70–100: repair is likely sensible. 50–69: stabilize, then compare repair with rebuild. 0–49: rebuild is likely more responsible after preservation.
Sample recommendation
STABILIZE, THEN RUN A CONTROLLED TUNE-UP.
The fictional site is unhealthy, but highly repairable: the business controls its accounts, useful content can be retained, and a bounded repair makes more sense than replacing everything. An active compromise, missing legal authority, unsupported platform, or uneconomic repair overrides any score.