Table 8 Cultural authenticity evaluation rubric.
Dimension | Weight | Score 9–10 (Excellent) | Score 6–8 (Good) | Score 3–5 (Acceptable) | Score 1–2 (Poor) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultural element accuracy | 25% | Elements perfectly match historical documentation; forms strictly adhere to traditional standards | Elements recognizable and largely accurate; minor deviations acceptable | Elements identifiable but with noticeable inaccuracies | Elements unrecognizable or severely distorted |
Compositional logic | 20% | Strictly follows traditional symmetry/nesting rules; spatial relationships historically accurate | Generally follows compositional principles; minor rule violations | Basic structure present but multiple rule violations | Chaotic arrangement; no adherence to traditional logic |
Overall style coordination | 20% | Perfect unity of color, line, and texture; coherent aesthetic throughout | Generally harmonious; minor inconsistencies | Acceptable coordination; some style mixing | Disjointed styles; incompatible elements |
Innovation performance | 15% | Creative yet culturally consistent; novel expression within traditional framework | Moderate innovation; maintains cultural recognition | Limited innovation; largely derivative | No innovation or excessive deviation from tradition |
Cultural connotation communication | 20% | Deeply expresses Jingchu cultural spirit; evokes strong cultural resonance | Effectively conveys cultural meaning; recognizable heritage connection | Some cultural expression; weak resonance | No cultural depth; purely decorative |
