Does Baldrige understand 'integration'?

Unless some users are really, really wrong, this may be the single-most damaging integrity problem for the award because integration is a core element of both the Criteria and the Scoring Guidelines. The first words of the definition ("integration" refers to the harmonization of . . .")  introduced in 2002 are vague and create a sense that something isn't quite right. When the "Integrated Approaches (70% - 100%)" graphic was added to the same Criteria booklet that year, it appeared to confirm the worst case scenario. That graphic (shown below) is not integration. It is nothing more than alignment. Integration is not limited to one direction, to only focusing on strategic and operational goals, or to being concurrent.

Additional confirmation that alignment is improperly substituted for integration can be found in the 100% scoring band wording for both the Process and Results Scoring Guidelines. Degrading the meaning of integration to alignment greatly lowers the standard of excellence bar and impedes the learning of Criteria users . . . if Baldrige would properly define and illustrate integration as well as correct the wording in the Scoring Guidelines, this issue goes away. . . and the effectiveness of the Criteria could be improved as much as a quantum level.