## 5 Case Study
### Global Subcriteria Weights  
After performing the peer comparisons by the three decision-makers, it was possible to obtain a cardinal value for the weights of each of the 34 subcriteria evaluated, as shown in Table 9.  
Analyzing the global weights of the subcriteria, we observed that those who presented the highest importance in the light of each specific criterion, as a rule, presented good overall performance. In fact, the criteria weights that were established proportionally to the number of subordinate subcriteria caused no significant discrepancies between the cardinal values of the weights of the attributes.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Social Profile**} \\ \hline  & & **S1** & **S2** & **S3** & **S4** & **S5** & **S6** & **S7** & **Sum** & **Normalization** & **Consolidated Weight** \\ \hline  & S1 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & 0.40 & 17.86\% \\  & S2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & 2 & 0.70 & 11.61\% \\  & S3 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & \(-1\) & 0.40 & 15.48\% \\ DM1 & S4 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-5\) & 0.0004 & 2.98\% \\  & S5 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 5 & 1.00 & 20.24\% \\  & S6 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 5 & 1.00 & 22.32\% \\  & S7 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-5\) & 0.00 & 9.52\% \\ \hline  & S1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & 0 & 0.60 & \\  & S2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & 0.60 & \\  & S3 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1.00 & \\ DM2 & S4 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & \(-3\) & 0.0004 & \\  & S5 & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & 0 & 0.60 & \\  & S6 & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & 1 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1.00 & \\  & S7 & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & 0.40 & \\ \hline  & S1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & 1 & 1 & 3 & 1.00 & \\  & S2 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 1 & \(-2\) & \(-2\) & 0 & \(-3\) & 0.0033 & \\  & S3 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0.33 & \\ DM3 & S4 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0.33 & \\  & S5 & 1 & 2 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & \(-1\) & 1 & 0.67 & \\  & S6 & \(-1\) & 2 & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0.50 & \\  & S7 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 0.67 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Paired comparison between the subcriteria of the “Social Profile”.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Character**} \\ \hline  & & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** & **C4** & **Sum** & **Normalization** & **Consolidated Weight** \\ \hline  & C1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 1.00 & 46.60\% \\ DM1 & C2 & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & \(-1\) & \(-2\) & 0.00 & 33.98\% \\  & C3 & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & \(-1\) & \(-2\) & 0.00 & 3.88\% \\  & C4 & \(-1\) & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0.60 & 15.53\% \\ \hline  & C1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1.00 & \\ DM2 & C2 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.75 & \\  & C3 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0.20 & \\  & C4 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 0 & 0 & \(-2\) & 0.00 & \\ \hline  & C1 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0.40 & \\ DM3 & C2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 1.00 & \\  & C3 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0 & \(-1\) & \(-2\) & 0.00 & \\  & C4 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & 0 & \(-1\) & 0.20 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Paired comparison between the subcriteria of the criterion “Character”.  
We presented the consolidated weight results of the subcriteria to the three specialists consulted, who validated the values obtained by cardinalizing their ordinal preferences.