RoastIQ is most useful when it changes a decision. The mistake teams make is treating a single KPI like the answer.
The right order is simple: read the decision cue, read the KPI pattern, read the benchmark context, then read the evidence. That sequence keeps the conversation grounded in the creative instead of drifting into score theatre.
Start with the decision cue
Every report is answering a slightly different question. Is the asset strong enough to scale? Is the opening losing attention? Is the brand being credited? Is the proposition clear enough to support action?
If the team does not agree on the decision first, the report will feel more objective than it really is.
The live structure is easiest to see in the example report, but the rule is the same on every run: decide what the report is supposed to settle before you read the numbers.
What each KPI is doing
| KPI | What it is really asking | When it matters most |
|---|---|---|
| Beat the Skip | Does the opening earn enough attention to stop the scroll? | First frames, first seconds, short-form video |
| Get Noticed | Does the creative register fast enough to be remembered as present? | Fast feeds, crowded category environments |
| Brand Impact | Does the brand get credited clearly enough? | Any time the ad can be visually strong but still anonymous |
| Sell Proposition | Is the commercial reason legible? | Product launches, offers, value propositions |
| Build Brand | Does the creative add brand meaning rather than just attention? | Brand-building campaigns and longer-term equity work |
Those five are weighted differently in the composite: Beat the Skip 25%, Get Noticed 20%, Brand Impact 20%, Sell Proposition 20%, and Build Brand 15%. That weighting is worth knowing before you argue about which row matters most.
If you want a cleaner glossary while you read, keep methodology open in another tab. It helps separate the score names from the decisions they support.
Read the pattern, not one row
A single strong KPI can hide a structural problem. A single weak KPI can be manageable if the rest of the report supports the launch call.
Common patterns usually look like this:
- strong opening, weak brand credit
- strong brand, weak attention
- clear proposition, weak memorability
- mixed scores with a strong benchmark read
The job is not to crown the best-looking row. The job is to see whether the creative is internally coherent.
The verdict already encodes some of this for you. Scale requires a composite of 70 or above and no KPI below 55, so a creative with one weak row lands in Sharpen even when the average looks strong. Rebuild triggers on a composite below 55, or on two or more KPIs below 45.
Use benchmark context as a calibration tool
Benchmark context is where the report becomes practical. The same raw score can mean different things depending on the format and the platform. A score that is acceptable in one environment may still be too soft in another.
Two things to check before you lean on a percentile. First, the sample size behind the slice, which the report shows rather than hides. Second, whether the platform is one where scores carry held-out validation. TikTok and YouTube slices do. Meta Feed scores are directional defaults, because outcome data for brand ads in the current cohort is sparse.
If someone challenges the bar, open the benchmark tool and methodology before the meeting turns into a guesswork argument.
That is also where comparison becomes useful. If two cuts are both viable, the report should help the team choose the one that deserves budget, not just the one that feels safe in the room.
Avoid the four common mistakes
- Do not average the KPIs into a homemade score. The composite is already weighted
- Do not let the strongest score overrule the weakest one
- Do not treat benchmark context as the strategy
- Do not use the report to avoid a decision
If the discussion sounds like score theatre, the team has probably stopped reading the creative and started negotiating comfort.
When the report should lead to another tool
Use getting started when this is the first run and you want the sequence to stay clean. Use BuyerLens when the report surfaces an audience question the team still cannot answer. Use the case studies hub when you want more editorial examples of how the workflow looks in practice. Use research insights if you want the broader editorial layer that sits around the product.
The meeting version
If you need a 60-second readout, use this order:
- What decision are we making?
- Which KPI is strongest?
- Which KPI is weakest?
- Does benchmark context change the urgency?
- Do we edit, compare, or pressure-test?
That is usually enough to turn the report into a decision instead of a debate.