G/Score Opinions?

We've been admitted as semi-finalists at an Innovate!100 Pitch Slam. The main purpose of the even is getting some visibility and, allegedly, getting a G/Score for your pitch.

The G/Score is a proprietary score calculated using a proprietary method developed by the event organizers. The also seem to somewhat endorse or suggest to use YouNoodle.com.

What is your opinion on formula-based scoring methods applied to pitches? The success or failure of a company depends a lot on human factors, so I find it hard to believe such scores are useful at all. As it's been repeated countless times, a mediocre idea with excellent execution can make a good business, and an excellent idea with poor execution will end up in tears probably.

Mind you, we haven't had our G/Score score yet, so this is not a rant for having a low score.

IMHO rubric-style scoring has it's place; misusing it is the problem.

Let's get specific:

• A very high score on one particular section means: This is at least "good enough" so stop worrying about it. There's enough other hard stuff that you shouldn't spend a lot more time here.
• A very low score on one section is a red flag. Possibly not a deal-breaker -- possibly not even a problem! -- but warrants more discussion and consideration.
• Any sort of "total" or "overall score" is probably bullshit. Business viability and value is not determined by adding up scores. It's more like: One deal-breaker could kill you, one awesome piece might make you, luck is a big factor, and I agree with your statement in the question that "the people" means a lot. So put no stock in that.

Finally, a good company will change in accordance with customer learning, especially in the early stages, and therefore all these factors they're grading will change over time anyway.

Your ability to learn and change is possibly more important than any particular measurement, and tests typically don't score that. (It's hard to score it anyway.)