CHOOSING BETWEEN TWO BABY NAMES — TWO SEPARATE RECORDS
Original preference worksheet, not a validated name test or a consent rule.

STABLE CANDIDATES
Candidate A complete spelling and order:
Candidate A everyday form and intended language/pronunciation version:
Candidate B complete spelling and order:
Candidate B everyday form and intended language/pronunciation version:
Revision and date:

FACTS TO VERIFY
Claim or question | Source or person needed | Next check / result
_____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS — KEEP OUTSIDE THE SCORE
Condition | Discussed by decision-makers? | Still unresolved?
_____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____

PERSON ONE: INDEPENDENT PREFERENCE SHEET
Define each preference so a higher rating is a closer fit.
Allocate ten importance points across the criteria. Keep the same weights for A and B.
Ratings: 1 weak fit / 2 partial fit / 3 strong fit. Unknown facts stay in the check list.
Criterion and preferred direction | Weight | A rating | A weighted | B rating | B weighted | Reason
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
Weight total (must be 10):
Weighted total A:
Weighted total B:
What these totals mean to me:

PERSON TWO: INDEPENDENT PREFERENCE SHEET
Define each preference so a higher rating is a closer fit.
Allocate ten importance points across the criteria. Keep the same weights for A and B.
Ratings: 1 weak fit / 2 partial fit / 3 strong fit. Unknown facts stay in the check list.
Criterion and preferred direction | Weight | A rating | A weighted | B rating | B weighted | Reason
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____ | _____
Weight total (must be 10):
Weighted total A:
Weighted total B:
What these totals mean to me:

DISCUSSION LOG
Meaningful difference | Each person’s reason | Fact or preference? | Next action
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____
_____ | _____ | _____ | _____

AGREED NEXT ACTION
Decision or unresolved check:
Person/source needed and any actual deadline:
Revision: what changed and why?

INVENTED WORKED EXAMPLES — NO REAL FAMILY DATA
Person One
Criterion | Weight | A rating | A weighted | B rating | B weighted
Family connection we want | 3 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6
Full-name comfort in ordinary speech | 3 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6
Style we personally enjoy | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6
Written form we want to use | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3
Familiarity level we prefer | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3
Totals | 10 | — | 26 | — | 24
Person Two
Criterion | Weight | A rating | A weighted | B rating | B weighted
Family connection we want | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3
Full-name comfort in ordinary speech | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4
Style we personally enjoy | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 9
Written form we want to use | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 9
Familiarity level we prefer | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Totals | 10 | — | 17 | — | 27
Person One sensitivity: move one point from family connection to familiarity; A = 25, B = 25.

EIGHT PRACTICE QUESTIONS
Case 1: Person One gives a criterion weight 3 and rates Name A as 2. What is its weighted contribution, and what does it mean?
Your answer and reason:

Case 2: Person One’s original example totals are A = 26 and B = 24. Does the worksheet require choosing A?
Your answer and reason:

Case 3: Person One moves one weight point from family connection to familiarity preference, keeping the ratings unchanged. What happens to the example totals?
Your answer and reason:

Case 4: One sheet uses high ratings for less correction effort; the other gives high ratings for more correction effort. Can their totals be read consistently?
Your answer and reason:

Case 5: A claimed name meaning matters to the family, but its source has not been checked. Should the blank factual field be rated zero?
Your answer and reason:

Case 6: Person One prefers A, while Person Two’s example favors B by 27 to 17. Should the two totals be averaged to settle the choice?
Your answer and reason:

Case 7: Both candidates receive identical ratings on every criterion for one person. Will moving weight points between those criteria create a real preference difference?
Your answer and reason:

Case 8: The full written candidate changes after the discussion, but its old ratings still refer to the previous middle-name arrangement. Is the old total ready to reuse?
Your answer and reason:

ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS
Case 1: Six points: 3 multiplied by 2.
The weight says how important the chosen criterion is to this person; the rating says how well the candidate fits their defined preference. Six is an arithmetic contribution, not a measurement of the name’s quality or the child’s future.

Case 2: No. Inspect the criteria and discuss what the two-point difference represents.
The total depends on chosen weights and subjective ratings. ASQ explicitly treats relative scores as a basis for discussion, not an automatic selection rule. A required factual check, unresolved concern or another decision-maker’s preference remains visible outside the total.

Case 3: Both become 25.
Family connection changes from weight 3 to 2, removing 3 points from A and 2 from B. Familiarity changes from 1 to 2, adding 2 to A and 3 to B. Thus A is 26 − 3 + 2 = 25 and B is 24 − 2 + 3 = 25. A small priority change removes the original lead.

Case 4: No. Define the preferred direction before comparing ratings.
A high rating must always mean a closer fit to the stated preference. Reword the criterion, for example as “comfort with the written and spoken form we intend,” and state what 1, 2 and 3 mean. Do not label a family or language pronunciation defective to simplify the score.

Case 5: Keep it unresolved and verify it separately.
Unknown is not the same as a poor fit. Zero is outside this worksheet’s 1–3 rating scale. Write the claim, the source or speaker needed and the next check. A score does not establish an etymology, registration rule or popularity count.

Case 6: Keep the two sheets separate and discuss the largest meaningful disagreement.
Averaging hides different priorities and ratings. In this invented example, Person Two gives substantial weight to the written form and rates A differently there. Ask what complete form each person tested and what matters to them. A combined total is not a consent rule.

Case 7: No. With identical candidate ratings on each row, their totals remain equal.
Each row contributes the same weighted amount to A and B. Reweighting those equal pairs cannot create a difference. The useful next step is to explain an unrecorded preference, do a factual check or leave the decision open rather than invent scores to produce a winner.

Case 8: Recheck the changed complete form and label a new revision.
The comparison needs stable candidates. Keep the exact spelling, order, intended everyday form and language version beside the ratings. A different complete name can change what was tested. Revise the affected observations openly instead of silently changing a name while keeping its old score.

SOURCE REFERENCES
American Society for Quality: What Is a Decision Matrix?
https://asq.org/quality-resources/decision-matrix
W3C Internationalization: Personal names around the world
https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-personal-names