The deliverable
What your client actually receives.
Every assessment ends in one report: a score, the two profiles that produced it, where they diverge, and a written read for whoever makes the call. Here is the whole thing, section by section.
Anatomy
Four sections, in this order.
One number, and where it came from
A congruence score between the candidate profile and the client profile, printed with the range this instrument could actually produce. It is arithmetic on two profiles that each sum to exactly 100, not a model’s opinion, so the same two people always produce the same figure.
Culture orientation, four ways
Both sides are placed on the Competing Values Framework: Clan, Adhocracy, Market, Hierarchy. You see each side’s weighting side by side, so a 74 and a 74 built from different shapes never look identical.
Where the gap actually sits
Per-dimension fit across the four moments where culture becomes visible: pressure, trust, ambition and risk. Not what either side says it believes — what actually happens when work is late, when something is contested, when a good outcome has to be named, and when the information runs out. This is the part hiring managers argue with productively. A strong overall score with one weak dimension is a conversation, not a rejection.
The analysis, in plain language
A written read of the result for someone who will not look at a radar chart. The language model explains the number it was handed; it never produces one, so the prose and the score cannot disagree.
Candidate ↔ Client
Jane Doe ↔ Fabrikam Retail
87/100
Candidate
Client
Each bar is one profile, so its four shares always total 100%. What the report is for is the difference between the two shapes — here the client leans more on Market than this candidate does.
Across the four moments
Pressure
92
What happens when work is late, stuck, or oversubscribed.
Trust
88
How people handle each other when something is wrong or contested.
Ambition
79
What counts as a good outcome, and what people chase.
Risk
64
How uncertainty, rules, and reversal get handled.
Risk is the weak dimension here: these two agree on how work gets done and part company over how much uncertainty is acceptable. That is the useful thing to probe at interview.
Read this part too
What the report deliberately does not claim.
An instrument that oversells itself is worth less than one that states its limits. These are printed in the report, not buried here.
- It measures preference, not ability. A low fit score is not a competence judgement.
- Near-ties are reported as balanced profiles rather than forced into a single winner.
- Straight-lining and unusually fast responses are flagged to you, never to the candidate.
- It is one input to a placement decision. The decision stays with you.
Response-quality flags
If someone straight-lined the ranking or finished implausibly fast, the report says so on your copy. The candidate never sees the flag.
Your notes stay yours
Private notes live on your side of the wall. They are never on the shared link and never in the PDF your client keeps.
Easier to judge with one in front of you.
The live example is a real alignment report on seeded data, scored by the same engine your own results go through. It is the same layout your client receives, and the same one the PDF prints. There is a single-candidate profile too, which is what a candidate sees of their own result.