Skip to content

Free tool · nothing saved

Client Trust Score Calculator

Powered by the Trust Singularity Score

Pick one client. Score four behaviours out of ten, based on the last 60 days. You will get a number out of 100 and — more usefully — one specific thing to do before your next call.

Score what the client actually experienced during the last 60 days, not what you intended. Choose the highest statement that is consistently true. If you are between two scores, choose the lower one.

10

How clearly does the client understand the plan, current status, responsibilities, and next step?

The client could repeat the plan, current status, and next step to their boss accurately from memory

10

How reliably do you keep promises, maintain communication rhythms, and renegotiate commitments before they are missed?

Every promise has been kept or renegotiated before the deadline, and your communication cadence has remained dependable for months

9

How often does the client hear important updates, opportunities, and problems from you before needing to ask?

The client almost always hears important information from you first, including early signs of potential problems

8

How clearly does your service and communication reflect this client's specific goals, context, preferences, and history?

Your work consistently reflects the client’s goals, preferences, constraints, and previous conversations

It is an index, not a percentage

This is the part that surprises people, so it is worth stating before anything else. Four sevens — a client you would describe as “pretty good on everything” — score 24.01, not 70. Four eights score 40.96. The scale is deliberately unforgiving in the middle, because multiplying four numbers compresses everything that is not close to excellent.

So do not read your score as a grade. Read it as a position on a scale whose only real job is comparison: this client against that one, and this client now against the same client sixty days from now. A first score is a baseline, not a verdict.

Why the numbers multiply

Four scores of nine, nine, nine and one add up to twenty-eight out of forty. That sounds like a solid B minus. Multiply them instead and the same relationship scores 7.29.

The multiplication is a design choice, and the argument for it comes from two well-replicated findings: Slovic’s work on how trust in institutions is destroyed faster than it is built, and the review by Baumeister and colleagues titled, plainly, Bad is stronger than good. Both say negative events are weighed more heavily and remembered longer than positive ones. An additive model cannot represent that — it averages a collapse into a respectable-looking total.

To be precise about what those findings do and do not support: they establish the asymmetry. They do not prescribe this particular formula. Multiplying four variables is my way of building that asymmetry into a number you can calculate on a Tuesday, and the four-variable choice is drawn from practice rather than derived from the research.

What the bands mean

The four bands describe what I have typically seen at each level across a decade of working with service businesses.

BandScoreWhat it usually looks like
Churn Risk025Comparing alternatives
Transactional2550Stays while convenient
Trusted5075Renews, forgives, listens
Singularity75100Refers, pays premium, will not leave

These bands are interpretive, not predictive. They are my read of a pattern, not a finding validated against renewal or referral data. A client in Churn Risk is not forecast to leave; the score is telling you that the behaviours known to hold relationships together are largely absent. Treat the band as a prompt to look, not as a prediction.

What the score does not know

It scores four communication behaviours over sixty days, from your point of view. That leaves out a great deal: the quality of your actual work, price, contract terms, whether your client’s budget just got cut, and whether the person who hired you still works there. A relationship can end at 80 for reasons this instrument never sees.

It is also self-scored, which means it inherits your blind spots. The single most useful thing you can do with it is ask a client to score you on the same four scales and compare. The gap between the two is usually more informative than either number.

And “fix the lowest variable” is a rule about the arithmetic, not about your business. Raising the lowest number produces the largest gain per point — but points are not equally expensive. If your Personalization is a 3 and fixing it means rebuilding how you write every message, while your Consistency is a 4 and fixing it means one calendar reminder, do the calendar reminder. The formula ranks leverage. You rank effort.

What to do with it

Score your five most important clients, not just the one you thought of first. Three things usually happen. At least one score comes in lower than you expected. The client you had been vaguely worried about turns out to sit near the bottom, and now you can say why. And your highest-scoring client is often the one who last referred someone to you.

Then do the one thing the calculator suggested, re-score in thirty days, and see whether the number moved. A score you take once is a curiosity. A score you take monthly is an instrument.


The score tells you where a relationship stands. It does not tell you how to move it across all four variables at once — the methodology behind this calculator covers what it measures, what it assumes, and where the four variables came from.

You have the number. The system moves it.

Trust Singularity is the full method behind this score: the Resonance Pathway, eleven live instruments, the monthly dashboard, and a 90-day plan that installs the whole thing.

See what is inside Trust Singularity