<p>Developing usable climate information requires a profound understanding of the context in which information is expected to be used. However, revealing how contexts shape the use of climate information is a cumbersome task. Against this, we propose an alternative approach which focuses on understanding how prospect climate information users construct evaluative criteria to assess the use of climate information for planning and policy making.</p><p>Based on empirical observations stemming from three local governments, our research suggests that evaluative criteria respond to the same set of formal and informal normative frameworks that orient the performance of work. These normative frameworks define what counts as legitimate and desirable action. Such frameworks operate through dominant institutional narratives that shape how climate risks are interpreted, what knowledge is considered credible, and which practices are seen as appropriate. As a result, certain uses of climate information appear natural and legitimate, while others remain difficult to pursue. Connecting climate information use with political, strategic, and operational agendas is critical for its uptake, as decisions about the use of climate information often involve balancing what is politically acceptable, technically feasible, and strategically desirable. These dynamics underscore that the use of climate information does not only depend on information attributes, but it also largely depends on the social processes that allign information with norms and narratives. We argue that a more profound understanding of how assessment criteria are constructed can offer valuable insights into how prospective climate information users learn, exchange knowledge, collaborate and develop trust in climate information, which are integral components for the successful development of climate services</p>