Metrics-based reasoning patterns diffuse from core to periphery as peripheral and semi-peripheral countries adopt Western evaluation standards as formal categories or cultural scripts. While these scripts are applied across disciplines, each field maintains its own traditional criteria for scientific assessment. Consequently, scholars navigate between internalized and externally imposed evaluative frameworks when writing reviews. This study examines how metrics-based reasoning diffuses differently across disciplines through evaluative practices, with metrics being transformed and interpreted within the context of each field's unique evaluative culture. To compare diffusion patterns, this article analyzes 174 negative habilitation reviews across four Polish disciplines: art history, mathematics, materials engineering, and sociology. Despite uniform policy incentives, reviewers employed diverse criteria when assessing publication records. Materials engineering exhibited the most extensive use and emphasis on metrics, while art history relied minimally on indicators. Crucially, metrics were never the sole basis for negative conclusions but were consistently accompanied by additional forms of reasoning.