For any framework, there will always be disagreements of the outputs, so thanks for the comment, Chris!

The main reason for frameworks is to provide some process or structure to make informed decisions. The output itself isn't as important as the dialogue.

In this manner, my post presents a framework that I used to classify these tools into three buckets, based on scores I applied using two key criteria:

A - the level of end user validation needed and

B - the type of data used as inputs to the frameworks

To your points:

Point 1: the assumption that "end user validation needed is synonymous with qualitative data"

I've not made this assumption. There's two dimensions of the matrix, and there exists frameworks that have a high degree of qualitative inputs as well as end-user validation: e.g., the Kano Model (KANO). The inputs for that framework are largely qualitative in nature, rather than numeric (i.e., question used here is "how do you feel if you had / did not have this feature" with answers such as "like it, dislike it, neutral").

Point 2: aligning 'advanced with 'quantitative':

Same point as above - there are two dimensions, so if it's a framework with a high degree of quantitative (numeric) inputs, I would say that that it is more advanced than others: simply put, there's more variables at play and more judgement needed to justify scoring and decisions based on scores.

I did think about putting a few more into the 'Advanced' classificaiton, such as ICE and Opportunity Scoring, but in the end decided not to. True, these have some level of charting, and the calculations required are a bit fiddly, but I decided that RICE (the more advanced ICE) deserved the title of 'advanced' as it needed more skill to pull off in a thorough manner.

Point 3: "No numbers will ever get you there" and "prioritization lists should be a starting point not the last word".

Yes, you're right. Hence the last point in my post and the quote.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter which framework you use, so long as you:

- Have a constructive team dialogue

- that invites participation in a safe environment

- and allows constructive conversation

- about what you think is higher or lower in priority and why

Hope the above clarifies the post a little!