platforms/lilith-platform.live
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 4
lilith-platform.live/docs/grading-rubric.md
autocommit c3c2331f4c feat(provider-grades): ✨ Introduce ProviderGrades schema, rubric logic, and seed data with API integration in server.ts 
Co-Authored-By: Lilith Autocommit <noreply@atlilith.com>
2026-05-17 07:47:50 -07:00

7.7 KiB
Raw Blame History

Provider × Market Grading Rubric

A reproducible system for grading both providers (escorts) and markets (cities) on the same A-through-F scale, so the AI researcher can answer: "Can this provider thrive in this market?"

The clearance test is simple: provider_grade(category) >= market_difficulty(category). If the provider clears the bar, the market is viable. The over-qualification gap hints at how dominant they'll be (big fish in small pond).

This rubric is the canonical reference. The TypeScript const at codebase/@features/api/src/entities/provider-grades/rubric.ts mirrors it for runtime use. Update both together.

Grade scale

F  D-  D  D+  C-  C  C+  B-  B  B+  A-  A  A+  S

F = unranked / not market-ready. S = celebrity tier, top ~1%.

Provider grade — what each letter requires

Each axis is scored qualitatively. A provider's grade is the lowest-axis ceiling modified by standout strengths; one weak axis caps the overall grade unless distinctively offset.

Axes

  • Review volume — verified reviews on TER / P411 / Eros / Tryst across markets.
  • Photo tier — production quality, recency, professional vs. selfie mix, variety.
  • Copy quality — bio, screening notes, ad copy that signals taste / scarcity.
  • Marketing presence — Tryst/P411/Eros tier, profile completeness, advertising spend.
  • Pricing power — what the market will pay at her rate without resistance.
  • Repeat-client density — % of bookings from prior clients (signals retention).
  • Niche distinctiveness — is she categorically rare in her primary niche?

Tier definitions

S — Celebrity (top ~1%)

  • Household name within niche; clients fly to her.
  • Pricing > (≥$5k/hr) without resistance.
  • Multi-market tour selling out months in advance.
  • Editorial-tier photography portfolio.
  • Heavy press / brand presence beyond the industry.

A+ / A / A- — Elite (top 5–10%)

  • 50+ verified reviews across multiple markets.
  • Top-tier photography (professional, recent, signature look).
  • Multi-market sustained presence — confirmed tours quarterly.
  • Pricing (~$2.5k–$5k/hr) commanded without resistance.
  • Strong repeat-client base (≥40% repeat).
  • Marketing presence: P411 Trust, Tryst Diamond, Eros premium.

B+ / B / B- — Strong working pro (top 25%)

  • 15–50 verified reviews.
  • Polished photos with variety (multiple sets, recent).
  • Pricing $ (~$1k–$2k/hr) sustainable in home market.
  • Repeat-client base (~25–40% repeat).
  • Marketing presence active across 2–3 platforms.
  • B+ specifically: dominates a clear niche (e.g., trans, BBW, mature) — categorically distinctive in a smaller pool.

C+ / C / C- — Solid working pro (top 50%)

  • 5–15 reviews.
  • Decent photos but not breakout (could be better lit / staged / shot).
  • Pricing (~$500–$1k/hr) sustainable.
  • Mixed booking pipeline; some repeat clients but not majority.
  • Active on 1–2 platforms; profiles complete but not premium-tier.

D+ / D / D- — Entry tier

  • <5 reviews or new to market.
  • Photos exist but are amateur / inconsistent / self-shot.
  • Pricing $ (~$200–$500/hr).
  • Limited platform presence; profile may be incomplete.
  • Pre-portfolio building stage; can work permissive markets.

F — Not market-ready

  • No reviews, no professional photos, no platform presence.
  • Cannot reliably book even in entry markets.

Market difficulty grade — what each letter means

The minimum grade required to thrive in a given market in a given category. A market is harder when many high-grade providers compete for the same clients (Vegas, LA, NYC) — entry providers get crowded out.

Tier definitions

S markets — Only celebrity-tier providers thrive

  • Monaco, Dubai during F1 week, Cannes during the festival.
  • Below S = noise. Even A-tier providers struggle to differentiate.

A markets (A- / A / A+) — Saturated luxury markets

  • A-: Las Vegas, Los Angeles (general), Miami, New York.
  • A: Aspen / Vail in season, Hamptons in summer, San Francisco / Bay Area during major tech weeks.
  • A+: None routine — only ephemeral peaks (Super Bowl host city, Art Basel Miami).
  • Below A = crowded out by sheer provider density.

B markets (B- / B / B+) — Affluent but reachable

  • B-: Amsterdam, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, DC, Seattle.
  • B: Atlanta, Denver, Austin, Berkeley / SF (off-peak), San Diego.
  • B+: Top European capitals during peak business travel (London, Paris).
  • Strong-pro level (B-tier) thrives; mid-tier struggles unless niche.

C markets (C- / C / C+) — Mid-tier wealth, mid-tier competition

  • C+: Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Nashville.
  • C: Columbus, Louisville, Cleveland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Tampa.
  • C-: Smaller secondary cities with established but not flooded provider scenes.
  • Big-fish-small-pond opportunity zone for B-tier providers.

D markets (D- / D / D+) — Permissive / emerging

  • D: European general markets (most non-capital cities), South American capitals.
  • D-: Cities with limited paid-companionship economy; entry providers can book.
  • Pricing pressure is real but competition is sparse.

Niche overrides

A market's difficulty is per category. Cities with thin niche scenes have lower difficulty in that niche even if their general grade is high.

  • Las Vegas: general A-, trans B (smaller trans-specific competitor pool).
  • Amsterdam: general B-, trans B- (proportional).
  • Cincinnati: general C+, trans C- (very few trans providers — niche wide open).
  • Berlin / Tel Aviv: general D, trans C (relatively sophisticated trans-aware market).

Stored as JSONB on destinations.market_min_grades, e.g.:

{"general": "A-", "trans": "B"}

Missing categories fall back to general. Empty {} means the market hasn't been graded yet.

Quinn's current grades (provider_market_grades seed)

category grade notes
overall B- Mid-range overall — C+ floor, B- ceiling. Strong photos and copy; review volume capped because she rotates markets rather than building one TER stronghold.
general C+ Against the open category (cis + trans + all niches), she clears entry but elite cis providers dominate.
trans B+ Niche-strong — small competitive pool, distinctive look, verified-implant confirmed, repeat client base. Where her opportunity actually lives.

The overall grade is the headline; category grades drive market-clearance math.

How to update grades

  • Provider grades: quarterly review based on the axes above. Bump when sustained evidence accumulates (review count crossed threshold; pricing held a tier increase; niche dominance solidified).
  • Market difficulty grades: ad-hoc as new intel arrives. After a tour stop, the destination_performance.observed_market_grade captures what the market actually demanded — feed that back into destinations.market_min_grades if it conflicts with the stored value.
  • Rubric itself: if you change criteria here, update rubric.ts to match — the AI cites both, so they must agree.

How the AI uses this

listOpportunityRanked in destination/repo.ts joins:

  1. destinations.market_min_grades (per-category market difficulty)
  2. provider_market_grades (provider's grade per category)
  3. destination_performance.effective_personal_grade (override when she has lived intel)

It returns each destination ranked by clears_bar AND region_value DESC. Cities where Quinn over-qualifies by 2+ grade steps are flagged as big_fish_small_pond opportunities.

The /engine/opportunity-locations?category=trans endpoint returns the trans-niche view — markets where her B+ trans grade clears the bar that her C+ general grade doesn't.