Ranking Methodology -- Quantum Networking Dossier -- Peerlabs Research

Scoring framework

Four Axes, 0-3 each, evidence-gated

Each initiative scored on four axes. Each score requires stated evidence and a confidence level. Half-point scores indicate the initiative sits between two levels.

F Functional Maturity 25%

What has the initiative demonstrated in peer-reviewed or officially documented results?

0Announced / funded, no results

1Lab proof: controlled conditions, peer-reviewed

2Field prototype: deployed fiber, real-world, documented

3Operational: sustained multi-node (>6 months), published metrics

A Application Accessibility 30%

Who can use it, for what, how ready for non-research use? Weighted highest -- the client's question is about enterprise/government access.

0Closed: internal only

1Limited: selective partners by invitation

2Structured: defined access, published onboarding

3Open: documented open-access, multi-sector, enterprise use cases validated

S Systems and Infrastructure 25%

Scale, integration, architectural sophistication of deployed infrastructure. Only what exists counts -- not planned expansions.

0Lab bench: no deployed fiber, single room

1Campus: <10 km fiber, 2-3 nodes, single institution

2Metro: 10-100 km, 3+ nodes, multi-institution

3Regional/multi-vendor: >50 km telecom fiber, multi-vendor interop demonstrated

P People, Policy, Sustainability 20%

Talent ecosystem, governance, funding sustainability, policy alignment. Determines whether it still exists in 3-5 years.

0Single PI, unfunded beyond initial grant

1Small team, single funding source

2Multi-institutional, diversified funding, defined governance

3Broad ecosystem (academia+industry+gov), multi-year, national/int'l policy alignment

Ranked initiatives

Select a lens to re-sort

The same initiatives, the same scores, different weights. The ordering changes because the question changes. See D-001, D-003 in Dissent register.

	Initiative	Score		F	A	S	P	Note

What this ranking tells you

Five observations

Kirq leads under enterprise lens

The only initiative optimising for multi-vendor, multi-sector, open-access quantum-safe integration on telecom fiber. Under "Research Frontier" it drops significantly.

DC-QNet is the most capable

Highest technical scores by almost every measure. Restricted access depresses enterprise lens score. For Five Eyes defence: #1 under any weighting.

Open access is a differentiator

ABQ-Net and Kirq both score 3.0 on Application. Every DOE testbed and DC-QNet score 1.0-1.5. Published open-access models are rare and strategically significant.

QEYSSat is a timing artefact

Pre-launch scores 1.0 on Functional. Post-launch (late 2026-2027), expect 2.5-3.0. People/Policy already at 3.0. Watch for re-ranking in 12 months.

What this ranking does NOT tell you

Which initiative will produce the next physics breakthrough. Research quality is deliberately de-emphasised under the enterprise lens.
Which country is "winning." National comparisons require aggregation across all initiatives, funding, talent, and policy -- not a testbed-level ranking.
Where to invest. Investment decisions need business models, market sizing, competitive dynamics. This assesses infrastructure readiness, not investability.
Where Ottawa would rank. The Ottawa hypothetical is addressed in the Success Model, not by inserting a hypothetical into this table.
Precision beyond +/- 0.5. The difference between 2.08 and 1.93 is not meaningful. Scores are analyst assessments, not measurements. Shelf life: ~6 months.