The science

Rigorous about the method. Honest about the rest.

Six dimensions, each anchored in named, published psychology. Continuous scores, not boxes. The same answers always produce the same profile. And we'll tell you plainly what we've validated — and what's still on the roadmap.

The six dimensions

What we read — and where it's grounded.

Each dimension maps to a well-studied region of personality and organizational science. We measure where you sit on a spectrum, never which bucket you belong to.

Directness

0–100
Adaptive & responsiveDirective & leading

How you take the lead in an interaction — whether you set the direction and drive the call, or read, adapt, and move with the other person.

Anchored in: the Interpersonal Circumplex (dominance/agency) & Leader–Member Exchange research.

Cadence

0–100
Spare & low-touchFrequent & high-touch

How much communication you need to feel in sync — the volume and frequency of contact that keeps you connected versus the quiet that keeps you clear.

Anchored in: Communication Accommodation Theory & research on communication frequency.

Tempo

0–100
Deliberate & thoroughFast & iterative

The speed you're comfortable deciding and operating at — how much information feels like enough before you move.

Anchored in: Type-A / time-urgency research & polychronicity (how you relate to time).

Structure

0–100
ImprovisationalSystematic & ordered

How much you reach for process, plans, and predictability — versus trusting yourself to figure it out live.

Anchored in: conscientiousness facets — order & deliberation — and need-for-structure research.

Candor

0–100
Sensitive to correctionHungry for the hard truth

How you receive challenging information — whether direct feedback lands as a gift or a threat, and how much candor you can hold without bracing.

Anchored in: Regulatory Focus Theory & psychological-safety research.

Attunement

0–100
Explicit & literalReads the undercurrent

How finely you read the emotional undercurrent — picking up what's unspoken in a room versus taking people at their explicit word.

Anchored in: the Empathizing–Systemizing model & emotional-intelligence (ability) research.
Continuous, not a box

A spectrum holds the nuance a letter throws away.

A four-letter type forces a 51 and a 94 into the same bucket and pretends they're the same person. They aren't — and the gap between them is exactly what predicts whether two people will mesh or grind.

Typology
D

Same box for everyone above the midpoint. No distance, no nuance.

Frequency
82

An exact position on the spectrum — so two “D”s can be 30 points and a world apart.

Same answers → same profile

The scoring is fully deterministic. Re-take it with the same responses and you get an identical waveform. No drift, no mood, no luck.

Reproducible by design

The same two people always resolve to the same resonance read. It's a measurement, not a daily reading.

Stable over time

Your underlying pattern is steady. We're reading a signal, not catching a mood.

Deterministic & reproducible

Not a horoscope.

The most common, and fairest, suspicion of any assessment is that it's vibes in a lab coat. Frequency answers it with consistency you can audit by experience: give it the same inputs and it returns the same outputs, every single time. (Consistency isn't the same as proof it predicts outcomes — see our validity posture below.)

Our validity posture

Transparent and rigorous. Outcome-validation is our roadmap.

What we stand behind today

Construct-grounded dimensions tied to published psychology, deterministic scoring, and a self-insight experience people consistently find accurate and useful. An aid that informs a human decision.

What we're still building

Longitudinal, outcome-validated evidence linking reads to real-world results. We're collecting it openly and will publish what we find — we won't claim predictive validity before we've earned it.

Frequency is decision support, not a pass/fail screen, and not a compliance instrument. We don't claim EEOC validation, and we'd tell you if anyone did.

See it on yourself first.

The fastest way to judge the method is to feel how accurately it reads you.