A corporate gift catalog can look broad while offering a recipient almost no usable choice. Twelve attractive products are not twelve alternatives if only one ships to the recipient's country, two fit the approved budget, and neither has current availability evidence. A useful audit starts with the decision a recipient can actually make at a specific destination and price point. This guide provides a versioned, editable scorecard and a way to use it without guessing anyone's identity or presenting a spreadsheet score as a certification.
What the scorecard measures—and what it does not
The downloadable English scorecard workbook and UTF-8 input CSV are version 1.0, dated October 15, 2026. The workbook has ten sheets: Instructions, Catalog, Countries, Price Bands, Accessibility Evidence, Stock, Scores, Exceptions, Methodology, and QA. Its sample products, country rows, price bands, dates, and exception are fictional demonstrations. They are not Giftpack inventory, supplier promises, consumer research, or a benchmark. Replace the samples with approved catalog and supplier records before making a purchasing decision. The CSV is an importable input example, not a substitute for workbook formulas. The price numbers in the sample bands are illustrative and have no declared currency; define local currency, tax, shipping, and any recipient contribution before using a band operationally.
The unit of analysis is a destination–budget cell: for example, gifts that are eligible for a recipient in Japan within a particular approved price band. The workbook counts catalog rows manually marked available (Y) for that destination and band—even if their evidence field is marked missing—against an editable target, and separately flags missing evidence. This is a candidate-row count, not a verified final count of independently eligible choices; a person must check delivered cost, deadline, distinctness, and evidence before approval. Its initial target of three candidate rows and weights of 60% choice coverage and 40% evidence status are editorial assumptions. The evidence term is all-or-nothing for a cell: it contributes its full weight only when no Y row has a missing marker, otherwise it contributes zero; it is not the percentage of documents collected. A team may change them, but should record the reason and keep the same rule across all cells in a comparable program. A numeric result is a prompt for review, not a declaration that a product is accessible, culturally appropriate, legally compliant, in stock at checkout, or welcome to every recipient.
This narrower lens matters because four apparently similar metrics answer different questions. Catalog size counts listings. Eligible choice counts items a recipient could select under the program rules. Fulfillment reliability asks whether the chosen item can be delivered when needed. Recipient experience asks whether the path to choosing, declining, or requesting help is usable. The scorecard covers the second question and highlights evidence gaps that affect the third; it cannot replace a human review of the first or last. For the complete journey, use the corporate gifting accessibility scorecard alongside this catalog-level audit.
Define an eligible alternative before counting products
Agree on eligibility in writing before an analyst sees the results. Start with the approved audience and program purpose, then list destination, currency, inclusive price ceiling, delivery window, permitted categories, restricted materials, recipient-choice policy, and the process for exceptions. For the final approved choice set, count an item only after the relevant supplier or platform confirms that it can be offered to that country and budget at the review date. In the workbook, however, a manually entered Y row enters the provisional formula count even when the evidence ID says missing; review that exception before launch. Mark unknown as unknown; do not quietly treat an old product page as a live stock promise. A nominal SKU is not an independent alternative if it merely changes color while preserving the same size, use, access barrier, or supply dependency. Conversely, a digital option may be a materially different path when shipping or address disclosure is a genuine constraint, but it still needs terms, availability, and recipient suitability checked.
The buyer should set an explicit choice target for each program rather than copying the workbook's demonstration value. Three eligible options may be a reasonable screening target for one small pilot and wholly inadequate for a broad multinational campaign. The scorecard makes the target visible, so a merchandising owner can debate it. An accessibility reviewer should test the selection journey and product information; a fulfillment owner should test destination and lead-time evidence; finance should verify the delivered cost basis. No individual needs to be assigned a disability, dietary identity, religion, age, or inferred preference for this audit. Offer neutral choice and a recoverable help path instead of building sensitive guesses into recipient profiles.
This is also why the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines should be used for the relevant digital catalog and redemption interface, not as a blanket certification of a physical mug, blanket, or snack. A supplier's descriptive product information, ingredient disclosure where relevant, dimensions, sensory attributes, and human test evidence may help an accessibility review; none of those fields, alone or combined with a score, proves every recipient can use the item. Keep the scope of each claim attached to its evidence. When a vendor says “accessible,” ask which interaction, product property, test method, version, and date the statement covers.
Build a denominator that matches the actual campaign
The Countries and Price Bands sheets define the cells being tested. Include only destinations in the approved campaign, and keep local taxes, freight, customs, currency conversion, and recipient payment rules outside the demonstration numbers until finance has defined a common delivered-cost test. A “$50 item” and a “$50 delivered gift” are not the same budget option. If a destination has no planned recipients, exclude it from the current decision rather than filling its cell with zero and calling the whole catalog deficient. If a campaign does include that destination, a zero is a finding, not missing data to hide.
Each Catalog row should have one stable item identifier, category, price band, destination, availability status, evidence reference, stock-check date, and source note. Split a product into separate rows only when country-specific availability or price legitimately differs, and document the relationship so a reviewer can distinguish coverage from duplication. The workbook flags repeated identifiers for review; the analyst still has to decide whether records are true duplicates, regional variants, or one product offered through multiple suppliers. Keep a separate Stock sheet because “present in catalog” can outlive a supplier's confirmation. The Exceptions sheet records a temporary shortfall, named owner, action, deadline, and later acceptance evidence rather than making the score look cleaner.
For a cross-border program, local availability deserves its own evidence chain. A product may be technically shippable but have an unworkable lead time, unexpectedly high landed cost, customs restrictions, or packaging that does not carry necessary local information. Confirm these details with the responsible supplier and destination team. The global corporate gifting operations guide covers the larger approval, fulfillment, and exception flow; this scorecard supplies a catalog-specific checkpoint within it. The localization guide is useful when the same item record has to become a clear offer in different languages and currencies.
Read the score as a triage signal, not a ranking
In each destination–band cell, the workbook counts rows marked available. Choice coverage is the lesser of one and the eligible count divided by the target. It then counts available rows whose evidence field is marked missing. The example weighted score combines coverage with a binary evidence-completeness check. If there are no eligible items, the score is zero; if the target is zero or negative, the coverage formula returns zero and QA asks for review. Negative weights or weights that do not sum to one likewise trigger QA. Those are spreadsheet controls, not assurance that the underlying supplier facts are correct.
| Reader question | Scorecard treatment | Decision outside the formula |
|---|---|---|
| Can a recipient choose at this destination and budget? | Count rows marked available (Y) against the declared target; review distinctness, deadlines and evidence separately before approval. | Confirm delivery cost, timing, category restrictions, and whether variants are meaningfully different. |
| Can the team defend the product information? | Flag an available row with a missing evidence identifier. | Review the actual supplier document, its date and scope; test recipient-facing language and the relevant interaction. |
| What happens when a cell fails? | Log the country, band, owner, corrective action, and due date in Exceptions. | Approve a substitute, adjust the campaign scope transparently, or delay launch. |
The table is a guide to action, not a normative scoring standard. A score of 60 in a fictional sample can mean one documented choice against a target of three. It should not be presented as “60% inclusive” or compared with a supplier's marketing grade. Even a score of 100 can mask a narrow assortment of near-identical products, an unreadable redemption page, or an item that becomes unavailable tomorrow. Read the rows, inspect the exceptions, and make a documented judgment. The workbook's fictional sample includes US/B1 with two eligible rows and one missing-evidence marker, producing 40 under the initial assumptions. That result validates the formula in the sample; it says nothing about any real country's catalog.
Hypothetical decision one: a low-budget destination with apparent variety
Imagine a program owner preparing a recognition campaign for recipients in Taiwan and the United States. The approved delivered-cost ceiling is locally defined by finance; the workbook's B1 band is only a template label until that work is complete. The buyer sees twenty products in a shared master catalog and wants to launch next week. A catalog analyst filters the actual approved item list by destination, price, confirmed availability, and latest stock evidence. The Taiwan B1 cell has one confirmed, genuinely distinct choice. Three more listings are either country-ineligible, above the delivered-cost ceiling, or unverified. The hypothetical scorecard therefore reports a choice gap even though the master catalog looks full.
There are several legitimate alternatives. The merchandising owner could source two additional locally available items; the program owner could offer a permitted digital or charitable-choice path; finance could approve a higher band; or the campaign could narrow its promise and give a truthful single-gift offer rather than claiming recipient choice. Each route has a tradeoff. More sourcing can improve variety but may delay the event. A digital path can avoid physical shipping but may exclude people who cannot use its redemption terms. A higher ceiling changes cost and potentially tax treatment, which finance and local advisers must review. A fixed gift can be operationally simple but reduces recipient agency. A sensible decision is not the route with the highest spreadsheet score; it is the route that meets the program's purpose and constraints with clear recipient communication.
Execution requires the analyst to attach supplier confirmations and the as-of date to each counted row, the fulfillment owner to validate delivery window and destination restrictions, finance to sign off on the delivered-cost definition, and the program owner to approve the chosen fallback. If two new items are added, retest the actual recipient-facing catalog and record whether they are meaningfully different. If stock later disappears, freeze the stale row as unavailable, open an exception, and use the approved fallback rather than silently substituting a product. Acceptance evidence is a revised catalog extract, two supplier confirmations, an approved budget/destination matrix, an accessible choice-path test, and a dated decision note. This is an illustrative scenario, not a Giftpack customer case or measured outcome.
Hypothetical decision two: high choice count, weak product evidence
Now imagine a Japan launch with five apparently eligible items in a midrange band. The first scan clears the choice target, but three rows have no current supplier detail about dimensions, materials, ingredients where relevant, or how recipients can inspect and decline an item. The workbook flags the missing references. It does not conclude that those products are inaccessible or unsafe; it concludes that the team lacks evidence for a responsible offer. A procurement owner may ask suppliers for dated product specifications and translated descriptions, while an accessibility reviewer tests whether the digital selection path exposes those descriptions in an understandable way. The program owner decides whether to withhold the uncertain items, substitute documented alternatives, or delay the launch.
Withholding the three rows preserves evidence integrity but may leave only two options; replacing them may introduce new delivery or cost risk. Launching all five with a generic “accessible” label is the most misleading alternative, because neither the label nor the workbook establishes such a fact. A supplier document can also become stale if formulation or packaging changes. Record the specific version and ask a human owner to recheck it on a stated cadence. If documentation cannot be obtained by the campaign deadline, create an exception with a recipient-support route and an explicit decision not to claim what is unknown. If the catalog interface itself cannot present the information or provide a usable alternative, fix that journey before inviting recipients.
Acceptance is not “the spreadsheet turned green.” It is a reviewed evidence register, localized recipient copy, a test record for the relevant digital interaction, current stock confirmation, a signed exception or approved substitute for any gap, and a date for rechecking. The accessibility scorecard is the complementary journey-level test. This hypothetical illustrates how a high choice count and a launch hold can coexist; no claim about a real supplier or customer is implied.
Run the audit as an operating cycle
First, the program owner states the question: which recipient destinations and delivered-cost bands must have a real choice for this campaign? Define the target, category restrictions, decision date, and exception authority. Second, the catalog owner exports a dated item list and normalizes stable IDs, regional variants, availability, and source notes. Third, the finance and fulfillment owners verify delivered cost and country coverage against their own records. Fourth, an accessibility and localization reviewer inspects the product information and the path by which a recipient understands and makes a choice. Fifth, the analyst refreshes the scorecard, reads the exceptions, and presents options with tradeoffs. Sixth, the accountable owner records a launch, remediation, scope change, or delay decision. Finally, recheck stock and destination eligibility immediately before activation and again on a stated schedule.
This cycle benefits from explicit failure paths. If an export contains duplicate IDs, resolve them before treating counts as unique choice. If an evidence field is blank, mark it missing and request a source rather than filling it from a secondary review site. If the formula detects a zero target or invalid weights, stop and repair the method; do not paste a score into a presentation. If a product disappears after approval, reopen the destination–band cell and invoke the fallback. If a recipient reports that none of the options is workable, provide a human support route that does not require disclosure of a sensitive diagnosis to the merchandising team. The data collected to operate that route should follow the approved privacy and retention rules; the recipient data operations guide treats that broader governance problem.
Before approval, run this evidence checklist against the exact campaign version:
-
Record each destination, approved total-cost band, deadline, and accountable owner.
-
Attach dated supplier evidence for stock, delivery, price, and product description to each counted item.
-
Check duplicate variants and confirm that counted items represent meaningfully different choices.
-
Give every missing-evidence row a requester, due date, and safe alternative; leave it unverified until resolved.
-
Compare the scorecard with the recipient-facing catalog and support route, then record the approver and decision date.
What if a supplier cannot provide current evidence?
Keep the item marked as evidence-missing and record the request, owner, date, and deadline. Do not recast the absence as a failed accessibility test or as a passed one. Offer a documented alternative if the cell would otherwise have no usable choice. If the team must proceed with a limited catalog, disclose the limitation in the internal decision and make the recipient help route clear. Recheck when a source arrives or the assortment changes.
Maintain evidence without turning the scorecard into surveillance
The minimum useful source record is a stable item ID, supplier or system of record, document or confirmation link, version or observation date, destination and band to which it applies, reviewer, and any stated limitation. Keep product specifications separate from assumptions about an individual recipient. A choice set can accommodate varied needs without inferring sensitive attributes. Where a recipient voluntarily requests an accommodation or different item, handle that request through an approved support workflow, not by adding a diagnosis column to this workbook. Those governance decisions belong to the organization and its legal, privacy, and human-resources owners.
Refresh quarterly as a default maintenance cadence and on every material catalog change, supplier switch, regional expansion, policy change, or fulfillment incident. This is a planning cadence, not a statistical finding. Keep prior workbook versions immutable so reviewers can see which rows and rules supported an earlier decision. When the choice target or weights change, version the method and rerun all compared cells; otherwise a “better” score can be nothing more than a new denominator. Archive the exception closure evidence, not just the closure label. A future audit should be able to reconstruct what the buyer knew at the time and what remained unknown.
The workbook is deliberately modest. It has bounded formulas, visible assumptions, and a QA sheet for duplicates, missing markers, unavailable sample rows, and weight validity. It does not crawl live stock, resolve local law, calculate landed cost, establish recipient satisfaction, or measure comparative vendor performance. A procurement team can add those functions only with verified data, controlled definitions, and owners. If the desired decision is whether to retire an individual product rather than whether a destination–band cell has choice, use the separate SKU retirement scorecard, because its demand, margin, and replacement criteria answer a different question.
Conclusion: approve usable choice, not an attractive count
A defensible gift catalog offers eligible, meaningfully different choices where recipients actually are, within the money and time available, with enough current evidence to explain what is being offered. Count at the destination–budget level; keep unknown evidence visible; let owners make documented tradeoffs; and retest after changes. The scorecard workbook gives teams a repeatable starting point, while the CSV input makes the sample record structure easy to reuse. Both contain fictional examples and adjustable assumptions, so replace them before relying on a result.
For organizations that have already defined their catalog rules and approval boundaries, Giftpack describes configurable choice sets, spending limits, country rules, and fallback options for executing a gifting program. The organization remains responsible for its own assortment, supplier evidence, accessibility review, privacy, finance, and launch decisions.