The buyer who closes fastest is not always the one with the deepest pocket, and that distinction cost a $34k spread

The assumption you named is exactly right, and the $34k loss is a clean illustration of why offer price is a lagging indicator of deal quality. Price tells you what a buyer is willing to write; close history tells you what they actually do.

The three metrics you flagged, closings completed, average days to close, and fallout count, are the right frame, but I would add one more that your story points at directly: recency weighting. A buyer who closed four times eighteen months ago is a different risk profile from one who closed four times in the last ninety days. Markets shift, financing conditions shift, and buyer behavior shifts with them. A long track record with a gap is a question mark, not a credential.

The risk you did not mention is how that data gets verified. Self-reported close history is nearly worthless. Title records are public and auditable. The more defensible version of your buyer scoring system runs off recorded deeds and confirmed HUD settlements, not what a buyer tells you over email. That distinction matters most when the deal is large enough that someone is tempted to inflate their profile to get to the front of the line.

On the list management side: sixty names blasted simultaneously creates a selection problem. The buyers most likely to respond first are often the most aggressive, which correlates with deal-killing behavior when they cannot perform. Tiered release, where your highest-scoring buyers get a twelve-hour window before the broader list, filters for close probability before price ever enters the conversation.

One thing worth confirming with your legal counsel: depending on jurisdiction and how the dispo agreement is structured, how you score and tier buyers may have disclosure implications.

What does your current data source look like for verifying third-party closings, title records you pull yourself, or buyer-reported history you are taking on faith?