No.

Slated Analytics' has deliberately designed the Script and Screening Analysis to avoid valuations based on marketability, demographic, budget, and other sales-related considerations. The question of marketability is an inherently subjective one. When there are issues with marketability, they’re generally not easily addressed in a polish. Demographic is a speculative element of strategy best determined by sales agents. And the positive or negative impacts of a project’s budget are already taken into consideration by the financial tools.
​
To expound on the question of budget, another reason Slated doesn’t give or take away points from the Script or Screening Score based on budget is because it would skew the ability to compare projects on the merits of story alone.

Some might argue that thrillers with smaller budgets should be awarded additional story points since the screenwriter had to accomplish dynamic storytelling within a limited number of locations or with a smaller cast. However, Slated Analytics doesn't give contained thrillers more story points than sprawling big-budget thrillers because they expect the same universal elements from both: developed characters, escalating conflict with high stakes, and an efficient structure (to name a few).
​
It's those basic requirements on which the story review of each script or screener is built. Asking the same story questions of every script or screener in a way that is unaffected by production allows them to look at a massive set of films and compare apples to apples (story mechanics), and oranges to oranges (earnings potential) independently. That way, filmmakers and their investors can more accurately pinpoint and delineate issues with a project's financial plan from its issues with story.