i think your source is the “official” but still prelimnary concordance released by CB at
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/psat-nmsqt-psat-10/k12-educators/psat-nmsqt-concordance-tables
Per this link and the pdf, 239 SI concords to 1520 and not 222. I am confused!
Based on this new information, I have updated my predictions for NMSF. It is a two part forumla, and it works in every state and for every child.
(1) Take the score of the person asking.
(2) Add one.
@Mamelot - here are the section → section scores:
http://imgur com/cce2r1w
Using my D as an example:
35 R → 66 critical reading
37 W → 71 Writing
36.5 M → 70 Math
→ total of 207
@Mom2aphysicsgeek - Don’t shoot the messenger!! 
To me, these tables mean that even a perfect score threshold would yield too many NMSF…
@thshadow 's concordance matches the new SAT concordance converter tool on the college board website. A 1520 SAT with 760 in ERW and 760 in math with subscores of 38, 38, 38 equals 2210.
@theshadow, the pdf i linked to shows 2014 SI of 207 concords to 1410 on 2015 PSAT. Something does not seem correct…
@OHToCollege - no, these are not the preliminary tables. The very first post I put was pointing at the selection index tables, which were not updated. (I even wrote that they said “updated in January 2016”.) Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to post too quickly… 
Eventually I realized that the later tables were indeed updated (and they all say “Updated May 2016”). And they look like really bad now, TBH… 
BTW, the only reason I haven’t posted my source is because she was nice enough to send it to me, and I don’t want her bombarded with random requests. I’m happy to share whatever images you want - time permitting.
How about Percentiles @thshadow shadow The only percentiles on the doc you got were the ones on the SI page that was not updated? Is that true?
@OHToCollege That is the original concordance. What thshadow is looking at is a revised version of this.
This makes no sense. In CA even a perfect score of 1520 would yield too many SF! Crazy! Implies NJ would have to have bonus SI awarded to be even in the running. Their 2014 cutoff was an astronomical 225, not even possible if you got 1520! Kind of like you scored a perfect 1520 and then wrote a PhD dissertation with all the free time you had left.
So are you saying the tables you posted are not correct?
Maybe the NMC will be more brutal when weeding out due to ‘C’ grades and the like.
Here is another table.
This shows 2014 selection index → 2015 total score.
Theoretically you can take an old cutoff score, and see where it maps.
So CA 221 goes to the aforementioned 1520 total score.
TX 220 goes to 1510
OR 215 goes to 1490
etc.
The (old) commended cutoff of 202 → 1420. We know a 209 is the new commended cutoff. 75M + 67V is 1420 / 209.
http://imgur com/CHjPm0S
What makes no sense is that based on these curves, how did 209 equate to commended?
Our school has only one perfect score this year and our school produces around 10 NMSFs, so I don’t believe that you need perfect score to be a NMSF in CA. I still think 220-222 will be the cutoff in CA.
But my D’s 1470 also --> to a 209.
Only 1 perfect score in our school as well and usually 11-12 NMSF (TX).
@suzyQ7 - I believe the percentiles were not updated. But the concordance tables were. (How isn’t that intellectually dishonest??)
@Frankmeister - no, nothing I’ve posted is incorrect. Everything is from the new official doc. My “mistake” was that the early (percentile) tables that I posted were actually not updated. The interesting part (which I’ve been posting more recently) are the concordance tables, which were updated.
@srk2017 - I also have a hard time believing that you need a perfect score for NMSF in multiple states. That seems crazy / stoopid…
Personally, I’m hard at work trying to figure out how these tables can support my D’s 217 qualifying in CA…
Art from compass is not agreeing. It doesn’t agree with his findings and you should see what he wrote
He responded to someone.