Re: Yes, blame the tool
I don't see how this tool is possible given that the judge in Hall v Lorimer (Court of Appeal November 1993) explicitly said,
"This is not a mechanical exercise of running through items on a check list to see whether they are present in, or absent from, a given situation. The object of this exercise is to paint a picture from the accumulation of detail. The overall effect can only be appreciated by standing back from the detailed picture which has been painted, by viewing it from a distance and by making an informed, considered, qualitative appreciation of the whole. It is a matter of evaluation of the overall effect of the detail, which is not necessarily the same as the sum total of the individual details. Not all details are of equal weight or importance in any given situation. The details may also vary in importance from one situation to another. The process involves painting a picture in each individual case."
Note the use of the word 'qualitative' (as opposed to quantitive) which means that any weighting in the tool runs counter to one of the most important pieces of case law on the subject.