What it's based on
Assembled from the literature, not invented.
Every item traces to a validated instrument. We don't reinvent measurement — we adapt established psychology for length and turn it into a clear reading.
The instruments
Attachment — ECR
Your two continuous coordinates, anxiety and avoidance, come from the Experiences in Close Relationships model (Fraley, Waller & Brennan) — the gold-standard two-factor measure — adapted into forced-choice scenarios and scored on the same dimensions.
Traits — Big Five / IPIP
Neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness use public-domain IPIP / Mini-IPIP items. The Big Five is the only personality framework with real predictive validity — the rigorous successor to MBTI.
Values — Schwartz
Your values dimensions (openness-to-change vs. conservation, self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence) draw on Schwartz’s cross-culturally validated values theory, plus hard veto floors (kids, money, faith) layered on top.
Conflict — ROCI & Gottman constructs
Conflict is mapped on the Thomas-Kilmann / ROCI plane (assertiveness × cooperativeness), with repair behaviour and the Four-Horsemen tells — the process layer that, in the research, predicts outcomes better than any trait match.
History — AAI-derived coherence
The open-text history question is scored the way the Adult Attachment Interview is: not for what happened but for the coherence and agency of how you tell it — which catches the part of you that the self-ratings miss.
The honest part
A short instrument’s danger isn’t shallowness — it’s confident shallowness. So the free reading reports tendencies, not verdicts (“leans toward”, never “you are”), states its own limits, and never prescribes. The coefficients are being calibrated against published norms; until then, we lean on tendency-language by design.
Our genuine contribution is the contradiction engine: instead of trusting self-insight (low-insight people overrate it), we cross-check what you say against how you behave, and the delta becomes the reading.