HOW IT'S SCORED · CxAM™ v1.0

The Claraxis Axis Model™, in full.

Every level, question and scoring rule behind your Manufacturing Operations Score is published here, so you can trace any result by hand. Your score compares your answers with written definitions. It does not compare you with other plants.

Six principles

Measured against definitions, not peers

A level means your answers match its written definition.

Things you can see

Every answer describes something a visitor could see on the floor or in a record.

Hedged cause and effect

We say a gap "typically affects" a KPI. We never claim to have measured it.

No dollar figures

A self-assessment cannot support a savings estimate, so we don't give one.

Published method

Everything on this page is what the tool actually uses.

Plain data handling

Scored in your browser. Answers reach us only if you request the PDF report.

The Clarity Sequence

CxAM™ improves a plant in a fixed order. You can't run flow on unstable equipment, or trust AI built on disputed data.

1 · Stabilize

Equipment and quality losses under control

2 · Standardize

Standard work followed, audited and improved

3 · Flow

Stable schedule, small batches, pull

4 · Sense

Trusted, near real-time data at every tier

5 · Decide

Analytics and AI recommend; people approve

The five levels

LEVEL	PROBLEMS	STANDARD WORK	IMPROVEMENT	DATA
1 · Reactive	Firefought by heroes; they recur	Lives in people's heads	Ad hoc, after a crisis	Paper or spreadsheets, often late
2 · Stabilizing	Logged and contained; root cause rare	Written for key tasks, followed unevenly	Project-based events	Captured, but trusted by few
3 · Standardized	Root-caused with a set method (5 Why, A3)	Followed and audited	Daily, through tiered meetings	One definition per KPI, shared
4 · Proactive	Predicted and prevented	Improved by those who do the work	Kaizen and Kata at every level; DMAIC for complex problems	Near real-time, used daily
5 · Predictive	Rare; learnings spread across sites	Evolves continuously	Culture of improvement; leaders coach	Models recommend, people approve

Level 3 is a sensible near-term target for most plants. Levels 4 and 5 describe sustained world-class practice.

What each level looks like, by discipline

What you would see on a floor walk at each level.

DISCIPLINE	L1 REACTIVE	L2 STABILIZING	L3 STANDARDIZED	L4 PROACTIVE	L5 PREDICTIVE	KPIS IT TYPICALLY AFFECTS
Leadership	No regular shift meeting; manager decides alone	Daily meeting is a status report	Tiered meetings at visual boards; actions owned and dated; A3 on repeat issues	Gemba walks to standard work; operators run kaizen; Kata coaching	Leaders coach; problems surface without blame	Schedule adherence; action closure
Reliability	Run to failure; no downtime reason codes	Calendar PM slips under pressure	PM windows protected; asset criticality ranked; reason codes on every stop	Autonomous maintenance; condition-based PM; SMED on bottlenecks	Predictive maintenance; failures rare and root-caused	OEE; downtime; MTBF; MTTR; changeover time
Flow	Schedule changes daily; expediting is normal	Weekly plan, often broken by shortages	Frozen window respected; material staged to plan	Pull or level-loaded scheduling; small batches	Schedule adjusts automatically to demand	Schedule adherence; cycle time; OTIF; inventory turns
Quality	Found by inspection; deviations closed late	CAPA often "retrain operator"	Set root-cause method; CAPA effectiveness checked; management review acts on trends	SPC on critical parameters; right-first-time tracked daily	Quality designed in; always inspection-ready	First-pass yield; deviations; CAPA cycle time
Data / AI	Paper records; spreadsheets rebuilt by hand	Systems in place, but data disputed	One KPI definition each; dashboards used in tier meetings	Near real-time data; issues flagged within the shift	Models recommend, people approve; formal data governance	Data quality; time to detect issues

The 12 questions

Each question has five answers, one per level, shown in random order, plus "Not sure".

How does each shift start? · Leadership
When the same problem happens twice, what usually happens? · Leadership
How is preventive maintenance scheduled? · Reliability
What happens when a line stops? · Reliability
How are changeovers run? · Reliability
How stable is the production schedule? · Flow

How does material reach the line? · Flow
How are deviations or non-conformances closed? · Quality
How do you know a CAPA worked? · Quality
How ready are you for an unannounced inspection or audit? · Quality
How much do people trust the plant's KPIs? · Data / AI
How are analytics or AI used in decisions? · Data / AI

Plus one unscored context question: "What most often breaks your schedule?" It is used only for the upstream flag.

Scoring rules

Answer value. Each answer scores 1–5. "Not sure" is left out and flagged. If more than half of a discipline's answers are "Not sure", it shows "Not enough answers" instead of a level.
Dependency caps. An advanced practice is capped at one level above the practice it depends on: Q12 ≤ Q11 + 1 · Q9 ≤ Q8 + 1 · Q5 and Q6 ≤ Q4 + 1 · Q2 ≤ Q1 + 1. The report says when a cap applied.
Discipline score. The average of its answers, to one decimal. The level is the whole number: 2.7 reads "Level 2, approaching Level 3".
Overall score. The average of the five discipline scores, equally weighted.
Weakest-link gate. Your overall level can be at most one level above your lowest discipline.
Lowest-scoring areas. The three lowest questions after caps, no more than two from one discipline. Ties follow the Clarity Sequence: Reliability, Quality, Leadership, Flow, then Data / AI.
Upstream flag. Shown when shortages or plan changes break your schedule and Q6 or Q7 scores 2 or lower.
Re-scoring. Re-score after 90 days, ideally with several people. Differences between respondents are shown, not averaged away.

Evidence grades

Self-reported

Your answers alone. This free tool always gives grade S.

Verified

Confirmed by a Claraxis operator on a floor walk with your team.

Measured

Confirmed against your own OEE, yield and schedule data.

What we don't claim

It is not an audit or a regulatory rating, including FDA quality maturity ratings.
It does not compare you with other plants yet. Peer benchmarks will be added once enough plants opt in, with the sample size shown.
It does not measure your KPIs or estimate savings.
The 30/60/90 plan is a starting point. Check it against your own data first.

How we're testing it

CxAM™ v1.0 is being validated with a founding cohort of 10 plants, led by Kobe Ofori-atta, Founder & Principal Advisor. Each takes the assessment and then has a review comparing the result with what its team sees on the floor. Changes are published in the version log below.

Join the founding cohort

Your data stays yours

The free score is calculated in your browser. Claraxis sees nothing unless you request the report or contact us.
For an evidence check (grade E) you can share figures you worked out yourself instead of documents. Those answers are marked self-computed, and an assessor samples at least 3 of them at grade R or V.
Benchmarks are opt-in and anonymous, and groups under 30 plants are never shown.
Floor walks and data reviews start with an NDA and a data agreement. We never share your data or use it to train AI models.

Where to keep your results

Decide with your counsel or quality lead whether CxAM results become part of your quality records.

Drug and most other FDA-regulated plants: FDA policy (CPG Sec. 130.300) says inspectors do not routinely review internal quality audit reports, with exceptions such as for-cause inspections, warrants, litigation and product-failure investigations.
Medical device makers: since the QMSR took effect on February 2, 2026, FDA can inspect internal audits, management reviews and supplier audit reports. Results filed inside the quality system may be inspectable.
Not FDA-regulated: the same choice applies to certification and customer audits, such as ISO 9001 or a food-safety scheme. Results become audit evidence only if you file them in your quality system.
For sensitive work, Claraxis can work under your counsel's direction.

General information, not legal advice. Confirm with your own counsel.

Built on established practice

CxAM™ draws on Lean and the Toyota Production System, kaizen, PDCA and Toyota Kata, lean daily management, Six Sigma DMAIC, ISO 9001 quality management, the Shingo Model, Total Productive Maintenance and SMED, ISO 55000 and SMRP maintenance metrics, ICH Q10 and FDA quality management maturity concepts, the Smart Industry Readiness Index and ISA-95, and ASCM's SCOR Digital Standard.

CxAM™ is an independent Claraxis framework. It is not endorsed by, or affiliated with, the organizations behind these models.

Version log: v1.0 · October 7, 2026 · first published version. Review by five independent consultants is under way; their findings will be published as v1.1. © 2026 Claraxis Group LLC. Claraxis Axis Model™ and CxAM™ are trademarks of Claraxis Group LLC.

Questions about the method? Email [email protected].