Purpose

To provide a structured self-diagnostic for romantic market positioning.
Outputs:

• Quadrant (Value × Constraints)
• Fit score
• Best lever (Status / Constraint / Fit)
• Bias flags
• Confidence level

---

Preamble

Before answering, define your dating pool: Who are the people you realistically meet and date (geography, culture, community, orientation)? Keep this in mind as you answer.

---

Section 1: Market Reality Check (General Value Axis)

1. Initiations: In the last 6 months, how many people have initiated romantic interest in you?
   • 0–1 (almost none)
   • 2–5 (occasional)
   • 6–10 (fairly regular)
   • 10+ (frequent)
2. Reciprocation: In the last 10 people you expressed interest in, how many reciprocated with clear interest?
   • 0–1 (almost none)
   • 2–3 (rare)
   • 4–6 (mixed, some success)
   • 7+ (often successful)
3. Relative attention: Compared to the average person in your dating pool, how often do you get unsolicited romantic interest?
   • Much less (e.g., 1 approach per year vs. peers getting 1/month)
   • Somewhat less (half as often as peers)
   • About average
   • Somewhat more (more than peers, but not dramatically)
   • Much more (e.g., weekly, while peers get monthly)
4. Peer comparison: Think of 3 people in your pool who are similar to you. How do their romantic outcomes compare?
   • They struggle more than me
   • About the same
   • Somewhat better
   • Much better

---

Section 2: Constraint Mapping (Constraint Axis)

5. Source of prospects: What percentage of your romantic prospects come from completely new people vs. existing network?
   • 90% existing network
   • 70% existing / 30% new
   • 50/50
   • 70% new / 30% existing
   • 90% new
6. Geographic flexibility: How far would you realistically travel to meet a partner?
   • Same neighborhood/campus (walkable only)
   • Across town (30–60 minutes)
   • Nearby city (1–2 hours)
   • Anywhere (no major limits)
7. Barriers: If you wanted to meet 10 new potential partners this month, what would be your biggest obstacles? (select all)
   • Don’t know where to find them
   • Geographic/logistical barriers
   • Social/cultural access barriers
   • Time constraints
   • Nothing major (mostly effort)
8. Cultural/religious limits: How much do cultural or religious norms limit your dating options?
   • Not at all
   • Somewhat
   • Significantly

---

Section 3: Fit Analysis (Value Resonance)

9. Fit inversion: Think of someone with very different traits from you who does well romantically in your environment. What does that reveal about what your pool actually values? (open text)
10. Validation sources: Where have others given you the strongest positive feedback?

• Professional/career spaces
• Creative/artistic communities
• Fitness/outdoor spaces
• Academic/intellectual settings
• Social/party scenes
• Online spaces

11. Best past context: When you’ve had your best romantic experiences, what was different about that context compared to where you usually look now? (open text)

---

Section 4: Bias Correction (Self-Stories)

12. Complete: “If I just ____, dating would work much better for me.” (open text)
13. What’s the most honest explanation for why your last few romantic interests didn’t work out?

• They weren’t that interested
• Wrong timing/circumstances
• We weren’t compatible
• I wasn’t ready/available

14. If a brutally honest friend described your romantic struggles, what would they probably say? (open text)

---

Section 5: Emotional Readiness & Time Dynamics

15. How often do you avoid pursuing romantic opportunities due to anxiety, past experiences, or self-doubt?

• Never
• Rarely
• Sometimes
• Often

16. Have your romantic opportunities changed significantly in the last 12 months? If so, why? (open text)

---

Scoring & Interpretation (summary)

• Axes:
  • Q1–Q4 → Value (Low / Middle / High)
  • Q5–Q8 → Constraint (Low / Middle / High)
• Fit Score (Q9–Q11): Strong / Moderate / Weak mismatch
• Bias Flags (Q12–Q14): Status Delusion / Constraint Blindness / Fit Avoidance / Externalization
• Emotional Readiness (Q15): Internal constraint overlay
• Temporal Dynamics (Q16): Stability vs. transition marker
• Quadrant Placement: Q1–Q4 or Middle band
• Confidence: Clear / Likely / Ambiguous / Insufficient

---

Middle-Case Addendum

If your responses place you in the Middle band (neither clearly high/low value nor clearly high/low constraint):

---

Differentiator Probes

1. Reference Group Check
   When you compare yourself to “average,” who exactly are you comparing to?
   • Local peers in your dating pool
   • Broader peer group (friends, coworkers)
   • Online/idealized references (apps, media)
   (This distinguishes “truly average” from “average compared to the wrong group.”)

---

2. Undervaluation Signals
   In your current environment, do you notice small but consistent signals that your traits are under-recognized?
   • Yes, often (e.g., compliments not converting to interest)
   • Occasionally
   • Rarely / Never
   (This reveals whether “average” status is masking a fit mismatch.)

---

3. Forced Repositioning
   If you had to shift your dating effort tomorrow into a single niche/community, where would you go?
   (open text) (This forces articulation of latent fit possibilities.)

---

Interpretation Layer

• True Middle: If Q1 = “local peers,” Q2 = “rarely undervalued,” Q3 = vague → diagnosis = genuinely average; strategy = incremental self-improvement or gradual pool expansion.
• Masked Fit Mismatch: If Q1 = “online/idealized reference,” Q2 = “often undervalued,” Q3 = clear niche → diagnosis = fit lever dominant; strategy = reposition into niche where traits weigh more heavily.