> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://forge-labs.gitbook.io/forge-docs/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://forge-labs.gitbook.io/forge-docs/hallmark/example-score.md).

# How a score is built

This is a worked example: one live strategy, every number, the evidence behind each criterion, and how it composes into the final GRS. If you read this end-to-end, you'll know how to verify any other Hallmark score yourself.

<figure><img src="/files/q6B5xlmXnnRwPQJXFjzX" alt="Hallmark score example for gteUSDc Morpho — GRS 3.63, Eligible. Composition: PR 2.20 × 0.35 + AR 4.40 × 0.25 + SSR 4.40 × 0.40 = 3.63. Full breakdowns shown for the Protocol Rubric (morpho-blue C1-C6), Asset Rubric (eusd A1-A5 binding via max rule), and Type W Strategy Rubric (X1-X5)"><figcaption><p>One strategy, every number, line by line. Every value in the composition is reconstructible from the criteria below — no black boxes.</p></figcaption></figure>

***

## The strategy

**Name:** gteUSDc Morpho (Gauntlet eUSD Core)\
**Chain:** Ethereum\
**Type:** W (Wrapper Vault)\
**Vault target:** fyUSDC\
**Methodology version:** v4.1\
**Assessment date:** 2026-05-18

Source: [`forge-hallmark/scores/strategies/gteusdc-morpho.yaml`](https://github.com/ForgeYields/forge-hallmark/blob/main/scores/strategies/gteusdc-morpho.yaml)

This is a [Type W (Wrapper Vault)](/forge-docs/hallmark/methodology.md#type-w--wrapper-vault-v41) strategy: ForgeYields deposits into Gauntlet's curated MetaMorpho vault, which in turn deploys to a set of Morpho Blue markets. We don't execute the underlying lending strategy ourselves — Gauntlet does. That two-layer trust model is precisely what Type W exists to score.

***

## The five numbers

```
GRS              =  3.63    ← composite, on the 1–10 scale
├── PR (Protocol)   =  2.2  ← weighted 0.35
├── AR (Asset)      =  4.4  ← weighted 0.25
└── SSR (Strategy)  =  4.40 ← weighted 0.40

Eligibility cutoff: 7.5     ✅ eligible
```

GRS 3.63 is in the "low-band" eligibility range — well below the 7.5 cutoff, comfortably below the 6.0 WATCHLIST threshold. Allocator can deploy without size caps.

***

## Layer 1 — Protocol Risk (PR = 2.2)

Type W strategies inherit protocol risk from the **wrapper protocol** (Morpho via MetaMorpho), computed via the Multi-Protocol Rule across dependencies.

**Dependencies (from the YAML):**

* `morpho-blue` (the lending primitive)

**Morpho Blue's L1 scores** ([source](https://github.com/ForgeYields/forge-hallmark/blob/main/scores/protocols/morpho-blue.yaml)):

| Criterion                        | Weight | Score | Evidence                                                          |
| -------------------------------- | ------ | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **C1** Audit Status              | 25%    | 2     | Spearbit + OpenZeppelin + ChainSecurity audits, findings resolved |
| **C2** TVL History               | 10%    | 1     | TVL > $1B sustained, 30d drawdown < 5%                            |
| **C3** Governance Quality        | 20%    | 3     | 3/5 multisig + 48h timelock on upgrades                           |
| **C4** Incident History & Op Age | 20%    | 2     | Zero exploits, > 18mo operational                                 |
| **C5** Smart Contract Risk       | 15%    | 3     | Singleton architecture, minimal external deps                     |
| **C6** Team & Transparency       | 10%    | 2     | Doxxed team, public roadmap, regular comms                        |

**Morpho Blue PR** = 0.25·2 + 0.10·1 + 0.20·3 + 0.20·2 + 0.15·3 + 0.10·2 = **2.2**

With only one protocol dependency, the Multi-Protocol Rule reduces to `max(scores) = 2.2`.

***

## Layer 2 — Asset Risk (AR = 4.4)

Asset risk is the **max** across the strategy's asset dependencies — using the riskiest asset, not an average. This prevents diluting risk by holding many small risky positions.

**Dependencies (from the YAML):**

* `eusd` (Reservoir USD — the deposit asset)
* `wbtc` (held in some Gauntlet Core markets)
* `eth-plus` (LST basket)
* `wsteth` (Lido stETH wrapper)

**Asset scores** (each computed under the L2 rubric):

| Asset      | ARS | Notes                                                                                                               |
| ---------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `eusd`     | 4.4 | A1=5 (CDP backing), A2=4 (depeg history minor), A3=5 (DEX-only exit), A4=4 (mixed collateral), A5=4 (mcap $50-200M) |
| `wbtc`     | 2.8 | A1=3, A2=2, A3=2, A4=4 (BitGo custody), A5=2                                                                        |
| `eth-plus` | 3.8 | Index of LSTs, A4=4                                                                                                 |
| `wsteth`   | 3.2 | Strong LST, A3=3 (async exit)                                                                                       |

**AR for this strategy** = max(4.4, 2.8, 3.8, 3.2) = **4.4** (dominated by eUSD)

The eUSD score is the constraint here. If Reservoir loses peg or backing degrades, AR would update and cascade into the strategy's GRS.

***

## Layer 3 — Strategy-Specific Risk (SSR = 4.40)

This is where Type W's X1–X5 rubric applies. Each criterion is scored 0–10, weighted, and summed.

| #      | Criterion                | Weight | Score | Evidence                                                                                                                                                                 |
| ------ | ------------------------ | ------ | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **X1** | Underlying Strategy Risk | 25%    | 4     | MetaMorpho deploys to multi-market Morpho Blue lending. Lending is well-understood; risk is conventional.                                                                |
| **X2** | Curator/Atomist Trust    | 30%    | 5     | **Gauntlet** is the curator — reputable risk-management firm, public team, track record on Aave/Compound. Curator changes vault allocations within published parameters. |
| **X3** | Exit Mechanism           | 20%    | 4     | MetaMorpho atomic-ish withdrawal: borrowers may delay full atomic exit if utilization is high, but standard cases settle in-block.                                       |
| **X4** | Fee Structure            | 15%    | 4     | Standard MetaMorpho fees: performance fee published, no unilateral change path within timelock.                                                                          |
| **X5** | Vault Maturity           | 10%    | 5     | Live > 1 year, TVL > $10M, no incidents.                                                                                                                                 |

**SSR** = 0.25·4 + 0.30·5 + 0.20·4 + 0.15·4 + 0.10·5 = 1.00 + 1.50 + 0.80 + 0.60 + 0.50 = **4.40**

X2 (Curator/Atomist Trust) is doing the heavy lifting at 30% weight — and Gauntlet's reputation lands it at a 5. If the curator were a single EOA (X2=9 hard cap), this strategy's SSR would collapse upward and the GRS would exceed eligibility regardless of the other factors. **That's the whole point of Type W having X2 weighted 30%.**

***

## Composite GRS

```
GRS = 0.35·PR + 0.25·AR + 0.40·SSR
    = 0.35·2.2 + 0.25·4.4 + 0.40·4.40
    = 0.77   + 1.10   + 1.76
    = 3.63
```

**Verdict:** Eligible. No WATCHLIST flag. Allocator may deploy without size restriction.

***

## What would change this score

The Hallmark score is *not static*. Specific events that would trigger a rescore:

| Trigger                                         | Likely impact                                              |
| ----------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| Morpho Blue exploit or governance change        | C3/C4 spike → PR up → GRS up                               |
| Reservoir eUSD depeg                            | A2 spike → AR up → GRS up                                  |
| Gauntlet announces single-EOA migration         | **X2 → 9 hard cap → GRS likely > 7.5 → strategy excluded** |
| MetaMorpho introduces unilateral fee change     | X4 spike → SSR up                                          |
| New audit on Morpho Blue with critical findings | C1 spike → PR up                                           |

The cascade integrity validator ensures that if any of these trigger a Layer 1 or Layer 2 rescore, this strategy's GRS will be recomputed automatically.

***

## Verify it yourself

1. Pull the strategy YAML: [gteusdc-morpho.yaml](https://github.com/ForgeYields/forge-hallmark/blob/main/scores/strategies/gteusdc-morpho.yaml)
2. Pull the protocol YAML: [morpho-blue.yaml](https://github.com/ForgeYields/forge-hallmark/blob/main/scores/protocols/morpho-blue.yaml)
3. Pull the asset YAMLs from `scores/assets/`
4. Apply the formulas above using the published weights in [methodology.md](/forge-docs/hallmark/methodology.md)
5. Your number should equal `grs` in the strategy YAML, within ±0.05 (the `check-drift.js` validator tolerance)

If your number differs by more than 0.05, that's a finding — open an issue.

***

## Why pick this example

gteUSDc Morpho was chosen for the walkthrough because it exercises every part of the methodology:

* Multi-asset dependencies (4 assets, max rule applies)
* Single-protocol dependency (Multi-Protocol Rule reduces to identity)
* Type W rubric (X1–X5, the v4.1 addition)
* Reputable but not perfect curator (X2 = 5, neither cap nor floor)
* Clear eligibility outcome (well below cutoff, no edge case)

For an example of a strategy at the **other end** (cascade-excluded by X2 = 9 + L1 cascade), see [ipsrBTC Ipor Fusion](https://github.com/ForgeYields/forge-hallmark/blob/main/scores/strategies/ipsrbtc-ipor-fusion-ethereum.yaml) — GRS 9.62, excluded because Reservoir Protocol's C3 = 9 (single-EOA admin) cascades down and the Ipor Atomist is also single-EOA (X2 = 9). Two independent hard-cap triggers, strategy never reaches a vault.