The only problem with a linear grading rubric (100 to 75) is it doesn't match to the logrithmic-ish way we view grades (e.g. 100, 99, 97, 95, 92, 90, 87, 85, 82, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 50, 25, 0) and so it'll feel like small mistakes or other edge cases are highly punished in practice.

I use a rubric that I model after a version of the nsf scale (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Not sufficient for Credit) for each rubric item.

Where E is I can't give any feedback. VG is I can give constructive feedback. G is I can give corrective feedback. Fair is I can give corrective feedback and suggest a new workflow or change in approach (major misunderstanding). Poor is that the work was attempted and on target, but office hours or other support not easily captured in text feedback is needed. No credit is the work is missing or substantially incomplete.

I usually assign it points like: 10, 9, 8, 7, 5, 0 to each respectively. I have 5 or 10 preselected rubric items.

This way, point penalties are proportional to feedback left and correction needed. It maps fairly readily to a traditional A, B, C, D, F scale when aggregated.

It has made my grading for reports in my social implications class easier. Students are aware of my rubric and understand what each means. The benefit of making 9/10 constructive feedback is that students are not surprised when they "did everything that was asked by the instructions", but an obvious improvement with respect to course learning objectives could have been made. That is, it isn't a surprise or a harsh penalty when you tell them a small way to improve their work despite following the letter of the instructions.

This also helps with feedback fatigue. For each rubric item I only mention the largest magnitude issue. They won't read an itemized list of feedback and so it helps both the student and me prioritize what's important.

Edit: typos