Script coverage cost and workload calculator

Coverage cost is mostly staff time: the hours spent reading, writing up, and checking each script. A fast report that creates extra review work may not save time. A human reader may be the right choice when the decision requires their taste, relationships, or accountability.

Use the calculator above to make the assumptions visible. It compares a month's reading and write-up time with the time spent checking a coverage report against the script. It does not estimate the value of a script, the quality of a decision, or the cost of a missed project.

Start with the actual queue

Count scripts received, not only scripts completed. Then separate:

• Material that cannot or should not be read under company policy.
• Scripts requiring a full human read.
• Scripts that can begin with a structured first pass.
• Revisions of material already in the system.
• Series episodes that belong to one title-level evaluation.

A single average can hide very different jobs.

Calculate the human workload

For each script, estimate:

1. Reading time.
2. Note-taking and synopsis time.
3. Scorecard and write-up time.
4. Calibration or editorial review.
5. Meeting and disposition time.

Multiply the total hours by a fully loaded hourly cost if the work is performed by staff. For freelance coverage, use the actual invoice rate and add internal review time.

Calculate the automated workflow

An AI first pass can reduce reading and write-up work, but it does not remove human judgment from consequential decisions.

Include:

• Subscription cost.
• Time spent checking synopsis accuracy and evidence.
• Human reads required by policy.
• Exceptions and rework.
• Setup, security, and training for team deployments.

Prescene script coverage is its own product, with no subscription needed: your first report is free, then it is $29 a report, or packs of 5 and 15 that never expire.

Compare workflows, not slogans

Model at least three options:

Workflow	First pass	Decision owner	Useful when
Human only	Assigned reader	Human reader or executive	Volume is manageable and context is high
AI first, human review	Structured AI report	Human reader or executive	Volume is high and triage needs a consistent form
Dual read	Human and AI independently	Human decision-maker	The team wants to audit disagreement and tool quality

Do not treat the fewest hours as the winner. Consider turnaround, reader capacity, false summaries, disagreement, and the consequences of advancing or declining the wrong material.

Track real results after the pilot

Run a small, representative batch. Measure:

• Time to first report.
• Human minutes required after the report.
• Synopsis correction rate.
• Reader agreement and override rate.
• Time to final disposition.
• Cost per completed stage.
• Qualitative usefulness in meetings.

Keep the same scripts in the comparison when possible. Otherwise, differences in material can look like differences in process.

A defensible ROI statement

After the pilot, a useful conclusion sounds like this:

For this submission mix, the AI-first workflow reduced first-pass preparation time while preserving a required human read before every advance or decline.

It does not claim that AI found better scripts or replaced readers unless the study actually measured those outcomes.

Coverage economics matter because attention is limited. The goal is to spend human attention where context and judgment create the most value, then make the rest of the process consistent and inspectable.

Use the calculator after defining a stable report with the script coverage template. When comparing software costs, apply the AI coverage-tool evaluation framework so speed and price do not hide evidence, privacy, or version-handling failures.