Research Methodology
The candidate scoring system, close-second profiles, and the category framework
An archetype is a named profile that describes a recognisable pattern of responses across multiple dimensions. The three studies collectively define 63 archetypes: 18 for Study 1, 30 for Study 2, and 15 for Study 3. Every archetype belongs to a category, which groups profiles sharing a common underlying characteristic.
Archetypes are not boxes. They are descriptions of a pattern that your responses most closely resemble. The closer your dimension scores align with an archetype's defining criteria, the stronger the match. Two people with the same archetype may have arrived at it through slightly different paths.
Archetype assignment follows the same general procedure for all three studies.
Paradox profiles represent contradictions: situations where stated attitudes and measured behaviour pull in opposite directions. Because paradoxes depend on detecting specific mismatches, they are evaluated before standard profiles. A participant who meets paradox criteria is a candidate for a paradox archetype regardless of where their dimension scores would otherwise place them.
Every archetype has a set of matching conditions: dimension score ranges, Likert thresholds, scenario response patterns, and MaxDiff selections. For each archetype, the system checks all of its conditions against your results and accumulates a match score. The more conditions an archetype's criteria meet, and the more strongly your responses align with them, the higher its match score.
This means multiple archetypes can be candidates simultaneously. It is normal to partially match several profiles: the archetype system is designed to reflect that real people sit near boundaries between patterns.
All candidates are sorted from highest match score to lowest. The archetype with the strongest match becomes your primary archetype. The archetype with the second-strongest match (which must be a different archetype) becomes your close-second.
If no archetype accumulates sufficient match score, a fallback is applied based on your composite score or dominant dimension:
Fallback assignment is uncommon. The matching conditions are designed to be inclusive, so most participants match at least one profile clearly.
Your close-second archetype is the next strongest match after your primary. It appears in your results alongside your primary profile with an explanation of what it means.
The close-second is valuable for several reasons:
Not everyone receives a close-second. If one archetype's match score is substantially higher than all others, the platform reports only the primary profile.
Categories are groupings of archetypes that share a defining characteristic. Your category is simply the category that your assigned archetype belongs to. It is not scored independently.
Categories provide the first level of interpretation: before reading the detailed archetype description, knowing your category immediately tells you the dominant theme of your result.
| Category | Profiles | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| The Exposed | 5 profiles | Role has significant overlap with current AI capabilities. The category spans a range from those with full awareness of their exposure to those who remain confident despite it. |
| The Transitioning | 5 profiles | Role is actively shifting from execution to evaluation. AI is changing what the work consists of, and the direction of that change is already visible. |
| The Durable | 5 profiles | Role has strong natural defences: tacit knowledge, relational complexity, or coordination responsibilities that AI cannot replicate in the near term. |
| The Paradoxes | 3 profiles | Contradictions between stated confidence and measured exposure, between current work and cognitive style, or between surface-level durability and deep anxiety. |
| Category | Profiles | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| The Power Users | 6 profiles | High individual AI skill and consistent usage. The differentiation within this category is about depth versus breadth and whether the impact stays personal or reaches the team. |
| The Team Players | 5 profiles | AI impact extends beyond individual productivity to team-level coordination and shared workflows. |
| The Frustrated | 5 profiles | Blocked from optimal AI use by organisational barriers: security restrictions, missing guidance, lack of authority to implement what they can see would work. |
| The Specialized | 5 profiles | AI use is narrow but functional. Adoption is real but confined to specific task types or tools. |
| The Cautious | 5 profiles | Deliberate, measured, or minimal AI engagement. This category spans from those who tried AI and found it lacking to those who are waiting strategically. |
| The Paradoxes | 4 profiles | Contradictions between tool breadth and depth, between informal expertise and formal impact, or between strategic awareness and current practice. |
| Category | Profiles | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Single-Friction Dominant | 6 profiles | One friction type clearly dominates. The specific type (activation, knowledge, or decision) and its underlying cause determine which of the six profiles applies. |
| Dual-Friction Patterns | 4 profiles | Two friction types are elevated simultaneously. This combination amplifies each type: activation and knowledge friction together create a situation where work cannot start and information is unavailable when it does. |
| System-Wide | 2 profiles | All three friction types are either elevated (The Systems Thinker) or all low (The Smooth Operator). The former indicates structural reform is needed. The latter indicates an environment that supports AI adoption. |
| The Paradoxes | 3 profiles | Friction that is present but not perceived, friction being masked by AI tools rather than addressed, or a mismatch between dominant friction and preferred solution. |
Every archetype has a dedicated page on the research platform with its full description, key characteristics, and recommendations. Browse all profiles by study: