The Xerox ACH implementation http://www.pherson.org/PDFFiles/ACHTechnicalDescription.pdf has Credibility and Relevance scores of Low=1/sqrt(2), Medium = 1 and High = sqrt(2). The Consistency score is Very Inconsistent = -2, Inconsistent=-1, and Neutral, Consistent and Very Consistent are 0. The Weighted Inconsistency Score is Credbility * Relevance * Consistency. So any evidence item which is not inconsistent gets a weight of 0.
For my ACH-ish model, as applied to rationales with comments supplied for forecasts, I will weight as follows. Let the forecast be F. Assign Credibility and Relevance scores of Low=1/(2*sqrt(2)), Medium = 1/sqrt(2), and High = 1. Let the Consistency score C be -1,-1/2,0,1/2,1. Let W = Credibility * Relevance. Then my ACH-ish-model weighted forecast will be W*(C*(F-50)+50), where forecasts are in range 0 to 100.
Just FYI y'all, in case you care. So far I see 74 forecasts for FARC of which 32 have rationales. My model for FARC is ACH-ish as above. The Consensus has been towards 0 on FARC except it just picked up a little. The early comments on FARC anticipated that pick-up.
Actually I think I will go with W*100*(C+1)/2 and ignore the original forecast in the formula, just looking at it as a shorthand for the text and how to view the import of the text.
We were able to work with HeroX to draft challenge guidelines, promote the challenge to a targeted audience of interested parties, and ultimately draw a crowd of innovators from across the globe to submit proposals to address our challenge. We were quite satisfied with the number and diversity of both individuals and proposals that the challenge drew.