Thirty balanced comparisons show which responses are easiest for you to read in one relationship context. You may choose either option or mark them genuinely tied. The report keeps counts and ties visible.
Words, acts, remembered objects, focused time, and touch are practical response categories. The result describes this run; it does not assign a permanent identity.
Three steps. Name one relationship and a recent time window, then compare two concrete responses at a time.
hirty moments carry the reading. Every pair compares two response channels, and every channel pair appears three times. If the two options truly carry equal weight, a third tie response records that instead of inventing a preference.
Two concrete responses at a time. Every pairing of the five channels appears three times.
A clear pick adds one to that channel. A genuine tie is recorded separately and does not inflate either side.
All five counts, the number of ties, and the top-two gap remain visible. A top tie stays tied.
Honest answers to the four asked most often.
No. The five-channel structure is a practical vocabulary, not a validated psychometric scale. The balanced question source and scoring are auditable, but the interpretation remains contextual.
Compare the two reports without treating either as a rule. Ask which specific response would be legible this week, in this relationship.
Four minutes. Thirty single-tap choices, no signup, no email. Your reading is shareable as a URL and a pentagon chart.
It can. A different relationship, time window, or recent event can change the order. That is why the report names the context and avoids calling the result your identity.