When combining checklist scores, people often want to weight some items more heavily than others.
This intuition is usually wrong, or at least impossible to justify rigorously.
Equal weighting is often the most defensible approach. It may not be perfect, but it's transparent and avoids arbitrary decisions.
If you're certain one criterion matters more, start conservatively. Try a ratio of 1.5:1, not 3:1. Large weight differences create easily exploitable distortions.
Ask yourself: "Why 3 and not 4?" If you can't answer convincingly, your weights are arbitrary.
Remember that importance often varies across the performance range. Something critical at minimum levels may not deserve extra weight at higher levels.
When in doubt, stick with equal weights. The simplicity is a feature, not a bug.
References
Scriven, M. (2000). The logic and methodology of checklists.