# Criterion status taxonomy

Each success criterion receives exactly one status. Statuses characterize the evidence,
never the candidate's suitability. They are computed mechanically by
`scripts/validate_register.py` from the register (tier counts, valence, convergence) so
that the same inputs always produce the same statuses; the decision table below is the
authoritative statement of that logic and the code mirrors it.

## The five statuses

| Status | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| Consistent Strength | Two or more independent sources converge positively, including tier 1 evidence |
| Emerging Strength | Positive evidence from limited sources, contexts, or tiers |
| Mixed Evidence | Credible sources point in different directions |
| Development Area | Convergent evidence of a gap, or of pressure behavior, from credible sources |
| Insufficient Evidence | Coverage too thin to characterize |

## Assignment decision table

Evaluate the rules in order for each criterion; the first rule that matches assigns the
status. An item's direction for a criterion is the `valence` of its coding entry for that
criterion, which the validator computes from the matched indicators' polarities (see
`evidence_rules.md`); the same item can point different ways for different criteria.
"Distinct sources" means distinct `source_id` values. An entry with valence `mixed` counts
toward both the positive and the negative direction. Entries with valence `neutral` count
for coverage but not direction.

1. **No evidence items mapped** to the criterion: Insufficient Evidence.
2. **All mapped items are tier 4** (self-characterization only): Insufficient Evidence.
   Self-description alone cannot characterize a criterion; note the candidate's own
   account in the narrative and add a probe to Open Questions.
3. **Opposing directions from distinct sources** (at least one positive-direction item and
   one negative-direction item, from two or more distinct sources): Mixed Evidence.
   A tier 4 self-claim opposing tier 1 observation qualifies; that is the classic
   self-versus-other divergence and must be interpreted as a hypothesis.
4. **Negative direction only** (no positive-direction items):
   - Negative items from two or more distinct sources, at least one at tier 1 or 2:
     Development Area.
   - Otherwise (a single-source or weak-tier negative signal): Insufficient Evidence.
     The signal is real but uncorroborated; report it in the criterion narrative as an
     uncorroborated signal and route a probe to Open Questions rather than characterizing
     the criterion from one voice.
5. **Positive direction only** (no negative-direction items):
   - Positive items from two or more distinct sources, at least one at tier 1:
     Consistent Strength.
   - Otherwise: Emerging Strength.
6. **Only neutral items**: Insufficient Evidence.

Statuses never come from anywhere else. If a computed status reads wrong, the register is
wrong (a coding entry's indicators, an item's tier, or a mapping); correct the coding,
re-run the verification pass on the touched items, and re-run the validator. The builder
fails the build if a narrative status disagrees with the computed one.

## Calibrated language

Open each criterion block with the status, then write to its register. The patterns below
set the confidence level; vary the wording naturally around them.

- **Consistent Strength**: "The evidence consistently shows..." State the theme with
  confidence and attribute the converging sources ("in the 360 verbatims and both
  reference interviews...").
- **Emerging Strength**: "The available evidence suggests..., though this rests on
  [the limitation: a single source, one context, self-report only]." Name the limitation
  plainly.
- **Mixed Evidence**: "Sources diverge on this criterion." Describe the pattern, then one
  possible reading, explicitly labeled: "One hypothesis, for the assessor to test, is
  that..." Every Mixed Evidence block names its hypothesis as a reading for the assessor
  to test, in the prose itself, and feeds Open Questions.
- **Development Area**: "Multiple sources indicate that under [conditions], [behavior]
  appears..." Tie the pattern to the conditions that elicit it, never to a fixed trait
  judgment, and where the mandate makes those conditions likely, say so.
- **Insufficient Evidence**: "The materials provided do not allow a reliable reading of
  this criterion." Then the suggested probes: what source, question, or exercise would
  close the gap.

Two register-wide rules: Mixed Evidence and Insufficient Evidence are respectable
outcomes, never to be inflated to make the document feel more complete; and no status
language may drift into verdict language (see `data/banned_language.json`), because the
status describes the evidence and the decision belongs to the humans reading it.

## Rendering

The criteria-at-a-glance visual opens the criteria section, built automatically from the
computed register: one row per criterion with the status in a calm tinted chip and a
per-source direction strip (one square per independent source: pink supports the
criterion, gray points both ways, ink counters it, light gray is neutral), followed by a
one-line legend. Text carries the meaning; the tints only group. No red, amber, or green
anywhere: color must not smuggle a verdict that the words are careful not to state.

Chart ethics (enforced by design, stated here so it survives edits): the skill visualizes
the evidence base, never a rating of the person. No composite alignment score, no radar or
spider profile of the candidate, no numeric encoding of the five statuses, and no bar
lengths that invite magnitude comparison across criteria. Squares are counts of sources
with a direction, which is a fact about the evidence; anything beyond that starts scoring
the candidate, which this skill never does. Evidence tiers stay internal (the register,
the status computation, and the chat coverage playback); no tier codes appear in the
document, whose tables speak in lay terms (independent sources, observed behavior).
