You answer alone
Thirty-two questions across eight dimensions. It should feel less like a form and more like a quiet conversation with yourself. You can stop and resume; nothing is shared while you are still thinking.
They answer alone
You send one private invitation. Your partner answers the same questions without ever seeing what you wrote. Independence is what makes the comparison worth anything.
Three perspectives per question
How true is this for you. How true you believe it is for them. How much it matters to you. The third answer is what separates a real gap from a harmless difference.
The distance is calculated, not guessed
A deterministic engine produces the metrics — experience, alignment, perception gap, reciprocity, friction. The same answers always produce the same numbers.
The report interprets, it does not rule
You read what holds, where perception diverges, where you are more aligned than you assume, and three to five conversations worth actually having.
Three perspectives per question.
Every question is answered three times over: how true it is for you, how true you believe it is for them, and how much it matters to you. The third reading is what separates a real gap from a harmless difference — and the second is where most couples discover they were each solving a problem the other never had.
What you actually experience, unedited.
What you believe they would answer.
How much this dimension matters to you at all.
A method first. Intelligence on top of it.
The distances are computed deterministically — the same answers always produce the same numbers. The reading over them is done by embedded intelligence trained on the structure of the method, not on generic advice.
Normalisation
Every answer is put on the same footing — scales, forced choices and written reflections become one comparable structure across the eight dimensions.
Distance metrics
A deterministic engine computes experience, alignment, perception gap, reciprocity and friction. No model touches these numbers: the same answers always produce the same result.
Sentiment and tone
Embedded intelligence reads how each of you wrote — certainty, resignation, care, avoidance — separately for each partner, before either account is compared to the other.
Cross-answer reading
Your account is read against theirs, including what each of you believed the other would say. Contradictions and quiet agreements both surface here.
Cause attribution
The analysis names which dimension is driving the friction, not only where the friction shows. A communication symptom often has a trust or reciprocity cause.
Conversation synthesis
The reading ends in three to five conversations worth actually having, each traceable back to the answers that produced it.
Emotional connection
How seen each person feels day to day.
Communication
Whether difficult conversations reach an ending both recognise.
Trust & safety
Confidence that the relationship holds under pressure.
Reciprocity
Perceived balance of effort, attention and repair.
Intimacy
Closeness, desire and the freedom to ask for it.
Autonomy
Room to remain a separate person inside the relationship.
Values & lifestyle
Agreement about how an ordinary life should be lived.
Future alignment
Whether both are describing the same future.
I believe our difficult conversations usually end with resolution.
I feel difficult conversations disappear until the next conflict.
The disagreement may not be about whether you talk. It may be about what each of you counts as resolution.
It never scores your worth as a person.
It never issues a verdict on the relationship.
It never predicts whether you will last.
It never tells you to stay or to leave.
Restraint is part of the method. WORTH gives you an accurate picture and leaves the decision where it belongs.
Understand first. Decide after.