{{ summaryTitle }} {{ summaryValue }} {{ summaryLine }}

{{ summaryAnnouncement }}

The code appears in the audit ledger and exported filename context.
Five cups is the common table default; the calculator accepts one through ten.
cups
{{ field.help }}
/10
{{ field.help }} Current {{ field.scoreLabel.toLowerCase() }} score: {{ supportScore(field.scoreId) }}.
affected cups
{{ workflowFeedback }}
{{ field.help }} Current deduction: {{ defectDeduction(field.id) }}.
cups
Use 0 for the neutral default, or enter a 0-100 target in quarter-point increments.
points
ComponentObservationScore effectAudit noteCopy
{{ row.label }}{{ row.observation }}{{ row.effect }}{{ row.note }}

{{ exportAnnouncement }}

Cupping guidance

{{ guidanceHeadline }}

{{ guidanceAction }}

Consistency check

{{ consistencyGuidance }}

Defect context

{{ defectGuidance }}

Target comparison

{{ targetGuidance }}

Protocol boundary

This is transparent legacy-style 100-point arithmetic for internal comparison and education. It is not a current official Coffee Value Assessment record or a substitute for controlled preparation, calibrated tasters, and written cup notes.

{{ exportAnnouncement }}

Coffee Extraction Yield Calculator Calculate coffee extraction yield from dose and beverage mass with TDS or Brix conversion, inclusive targets, and dilution estimates.
Coffee Strength Calculator Measure coffee strength from TDS or Brix and calculate extraction yield, with clear comparisons against stated filter, immersion and espresso targets.
Coffee Water Recipe Calculator Build coffee water from GH, alkalinity and TDS with source dilution and exact mineral doses, plus checks for small measurements and equipment risks.
Coffee Bag Yield Calculator Calculate how many servings a coffee bag yields and what each costs, then estimate runout and reorder timing from waste and daily use.

Cupping gives tasters a shared way to examine fragrance, flavor, finish, acidity, body, balance, and the overall impression of a coffee. Several cups from the same sample are prepared together so the table can reveal both the character of the coffee and problems that appear in only part of the set.

A composite score compresses many judgments into one number. That is useful for comparing samples scored under the same protocol, but the total does not explain why one coffee was preferred or how it tasted. Two samples can reach the same total through different combinations of acidity, body, aroma, defects, and consistency.

EvidenceWhat it recordsCommon mistake
Quality attributesThe taster's quality impression for aroma, flavor, finish, acidity, body, balance, and overall.Scoring intensity instead of quality.
Cup support scoresUniformity, clean cup, and sweetness across the evaluated set.Ignoring which individual cups caused a deduction.
DefectsTaint or fault counts that subtract from the positive subtotal.Using the total without retaining defect notes.

Repeatability depends on more than arithmetic. Sample preparation, roast condition, water, grind, dose, steep time, temperature, cup count, tasting order, and panel calibration can all move the sensory judgment. A score should therefore travel with a sample code, session notes, and the protocol used.

The scoring model here follows a legacy-style 100-point scorecard. The Specialty Coffee Association's current Coffee Value Assessment (CVA) separates descriptive, affective, physical, and extrinsic assessments instead of treating one legacy total as the complete account of value. A legacy score may still be useful in an existing buying or calibration workflow, but it should not be presented as a current CVA result.

Band labels such as Outstanding or Very good are category aids, not proof of market value, origin, processing quality, or freedom from defects. The attribute profile and written cup notes remain essential when a purchasing, roasting, or quality-control decision depends on the reasons behind the total.

How to Use This Tool:

Score one prepared sample set after tasting across the session's temperature range. Keep written sensory and defect notes beside the numeric record.

  1. Enter a Sample code and the number of Cups evaluated. Use the actual set size because each affected cup's support deduction depends on it.
  2. Score the seven quality attributes from 6 to 10 in quarter-point steps. Judge quality and integration, not simply the intensity of acidity, aroma, or body.
  3. Count non-uniform cups, cups with a clean-cup issue, and cups lacking sweetness. Each count must refer to the same evaluated set.
  4. Enter taint and fault cup counts. Retain notes that identify the affected cups and the sensory evidence behind each count.
  5. Set a comparison target only when it comes from the same protocol and calibration context, then review the final score, band, deductions, and strongest and weakest attributes together.

Interpreting Results:

Final score is the sum of seven quality attributes plus the remaining Uniformity, Clean cup, and Sweetness points, less taint and fault penalties. Total deduction shows the combined support and defect deductions, even though the reduced support scores already enter the positive subtotal.

Final scoreBandBoundary
90.00 to 100.00Outstanding90 is included
85.00 to 89.99Excellent85 is included
80.00 to 84.99Very good80 is included
Below 80.00Below specialty thresholdValues below 80

Do not compare totals from different forms as though the scoring rules were identical. Even within one legacy workflow, compare samples only when preparation, cup count, tasting conditions, and panel calibration are sufficiently consistent.

A target gap says only whether this computed total met the entered target. It does not explain sensory fit or purchasing value. Read the attribute profile and defect notes before acting on a narrow point difference.

Technical Details:

The model builds a 100-point legacy-style subtotal from ten positive scores. Seven are entered directly. Uniformity, Clean cup, and Sweetness each start at 10 and lose an equal share for every affected cup in the evaluated set.

Formula Core:

The cup-count term makes one affected cup more consequential in a small set than in a large set.

h=10n Sk=max(0,10−akh) F=max(0,∑i=17Qi+∑k=13Sk−2t−4f)
SymbolMeaningUnit
n, hCups evaluated and deduction per affected cupcups and points/cup
QiOne of seven quality attribute scorespoints
ak, SkAffected-cup count and remaining score for one support categorycups and points
t, fTaint cups and fault cupscups
FFinal score, floored at zeropoints

Rule Core:

  • Quality attributes are constrained to 6 through 10 and normalized to the nearest 0.25 point.
  • Cup count is rounded to a whole number and constrained to 1 through 10.
  • Affected-cup and defect counts are rounded to whole cups and cannot exceed the evaluated set.
  • The optional target is constrained to 0 through 100 and normalized to the nearest 0.25 point; zero turns target comparison off.
  • Band tests are evaluated from the highest minimum downward, so 90, 85, and 80 belong to the higher band at each boundary.

The arithmetic retains its full numeric value. The interface presents the final score and gaps at readable precision, while the score audit exposes the component contributions.

Accuracy, Privacy, and Scope Notes:

This calculation reproduces its stated legacy-style score rules. It does not perform the current SCA Coffee Value Assessment, certify a Q Grader result, or replace sensory calibration.

  • Use the same cup set for every support and defect count.
  • Record sensory notes because a total cannot preserve the reason for each score.
  • Do not use the band alone to establish price, contract grade, or market suitability.
  • Entries stay in the browser and are not sent to a scoring service.

Worked Examples:

One non-uniform cup in a five-cup set

Seven quality attributes totaling 57.25 points and three perfect support scores would produce 87.25 before defects. In a five-cup set, each affected cup costs 10 ÷ 5 = 2 support points. Marking one non-uniform cup reduces Uniformity from 10 to 8 and the final score to 85.25, still inside the Excellent band. The result should retain the note identifying what differed in that cup.

References: