Decision-pattern report · Sample for "Sarah, 34, product manager"
Steady · deliberate deciding (data-verified)
How confident is this? Our classification engine agreed with independent case re-analysis in 149 of 180 internal review cases (82.8%) — an internal consistency rate, not a prediction of your future. Roughly 1 in 6 cases disagreed in that review; every conclusion below shows its trace so you can judge each one yourself.

Your three axes

Scores show how you tend to approach a choice, not who you are.

Risk
-4
Steady — you protect the downside first
Pace
-3
Deliberate — you let options mature
Information
+5
Data-verified — you trust what you can check

Sarah's profile is consistent: a steady risk posture, a deliberate pace, and a strong preference for verifiable information. Patterns this aligned usually hold up under pressure — but they carry a specific blind spot (see the watch-out below).[1]

How this pattern shows up at a career crossroads

With a Steady + data-verified profile, Sarah tends to over-invest in research before switching roles: more sources, one more comparison spreadsheet, one more "let me be sure." That diligence is a real strength — it shields her from impulsive moves. The cost: strong protection plus deep deliberation can delay reversible opportunities.[2] A reversible move (trying the new role while keeping the old one on life support) is mis-priced as if it were irreversible.

Your action list

1. Write your three non-negotiables before looking at any offer.
Pre-committed criteria beat in-the-moment judgment for steady profiles — they stop slow re-negotiation with yourself.[3]
2. Time-box the research: two weeks, one page.
A deadline converts open-ended verification into a decision. Deliberate profiles benefit from external stopping rules, not more data.[4]
3. Run one reversible probe before the leap.
A 30-day side project or shadowing day in the target field costs little and gives real feedback — the kind data-verified profiles trust most.[5]
Where each conclusion comes from
  1. [1] Pattern-consistency statement — from your axis scores: R=-4, S=-3, I=+5 (rule: consistency-check v1).
  2. [2] Watch-out — fixed rule for the combination R<0 ∧ S<0 (rule: watchout-RS-1).
  3. [3] Action advice — mapped from R<0 (steady pole) via the action table, "non-negotiables" entry.
  4. [4] Action advice — mapped from S<0 (deliberate pole): external stopping-rule entry.
  5. [5] Action advice — mapped from I>0 (data-verified pole): "reversible probe" entry, chosen because the feedback format matches your information preference.

Every line in a paid report carries a trace like this: which of your inputs produced it, and which published rule rendered it. If any conclusion cannot be traced to your inputs or the methods on our methodology page, our 7-day accuracy refund applies — automatically.

Refund promise: if any single conclusion cannot be traced to your inputs or our published methods, full refund within 7 days. Reply to your delivery email pointing at the line — if we can't show the trace in 48h, you don't argue, we refund.
👍 This fits me 👎 This doesn't ❓ Unclear

(Interactive in real reports — your taps directly improve the next version, and we publish what we learn.)