From metrics to meaning: Why analytical chemistry needs assessment standards rather than more assessment tools

The development of assessment metrics has been one of the most visible successes of Green Analytical Chemistry during the last decade. Tools such as GAPI, AGREE (and their modifications), BAGI and numerous subsequent approaches have significantly improved awareness of environmental, practical and holistic aspects of analytical methodologies. Their emergence has transformed method assessment from a qualitative discussion into a structured and increasingly quantitative process. However, the rapid proliferation of assessment tools has also created new challenges. Different metrics frequently evaluate overlapping aspects of analytical procedures, often producing results that are difficult to compare and interpret across studies. In many cases, methodological novelty is increasingly associated with modifying existing scoring systems rather than addressing unresolved assessment needs. This commentary argues that the analytical community has reached a stage where the primary challenge is no longer the development of additional metrics, but the establishment of harmonized principles governing their selection, application and interpretation. Future progress should focus on creating top-down assessment frameworks, defining good assessment practices, and ensuring that evaluation remains transparent, fit-for-purpose and scientifically meaningful. Assessment should support informed decision-making rather than become an objective in itself.