Experience Quotients: Aligning Complementary Types

Briar M. Greenway and Claude · ThinkWell Labs · October 2026 · version 2

Abstract

The Experience Quotients describe what each person brings to relationships and to sex, and then how two people's types fit together. They do not look for two people who are the same. A Dominant is not well paired with another Dominant, nor a Talker with another Talker; such roles are completed by their counterparts. Other things, such as wanting children or wanting monogamy, do need to be shared. The quotients keep these apart.

For each person there are two layers. The first is eight count questions, converted to rates per year on separate relationship and sexual clocks and summarised as the Relationship Experience & Expectation Quotient (REEQ) over the Sexual Experience & Expectation Quotient (SEEQ), for example 55/38. The second is an overlay of roles, each answered twice: how much experience the person has in the role, and whether they want it. These give two double numbers, relationship experience over expectation and sexual experience over expectation.

For two people there are four measures. Complement is how much of what each wants in a complementary role the other wants in the counterpart role. Accord is agreement on the things that must be shared. Spread is how evenly the complementarity is distributed across the levels of a cascade, from the two sides of a relationship down to each role in each direction. Together combines them: 100 × √(Complement × Accord) × (1 + Spread) ÷ 2. Boundaries, where one person wants what the other has ruled out, are listed and never averaged into any number.

Nothing here has outcome data yet. The paper sets out each formula and its reasons, the research that supports and limits it, a rule for the one weight no study determines, and how the measures will be tested. A browser-only calculator accompanies it.

Aligning, not matching

Matching means finding the same. These quotients align complementary types: they ask whether what one person wants to give is what the other wants to receive, and whether one has done what the other wants to try. Sameness is used only where sameness is what a relationship needs.

The first version of this paper compared two people by how close their rates were. That was sameness, and it was the wrong question for the intent. It is kept in part one as a description of each person, and no longer used to say how well two people fit.

What the quotients are not:

• Not a verdict on a person. No individual number is good or bad. A heartbreak counts as experience, not as a deduction from it, and more experience is not better than less.
• Not a prediction. Together describes how two sets of answers interlock. Whether it relates to how relationships go is what the testing is for.
• Not a comparison with other people. Each score is set against one fixed reference answer or against the person's own answers, never against a group.

Part one · each person

The count questions

Every question must be answered. Zero is an answer, and "never" is an answer to the two starting ages; a blank is not.

A relationship begins when you meet the person and counts at any length, from a day to a decade. Answers must agree with one another: "never" on the relationship clock requires zero relationships, "never" on the sexual clock requires zero people slept with, a longest relationship needs at least one relationship, and no relationship can be longer than the time since the first one began. Counts are taken exactly as given, with no cap, and neither starting age has a floor.

From counts to REEQ and SEEQ

Two clocks

Relationship answers are measured across the years since the first chosen relationship, sexual answers across the years since the first chosen sexual experience. Where a clock is "never", the whole of the person's life is used: the partner counts on that side are zero anyway, and a person can fall in love, or be heartbroken, without being involved with anyone. A clock is never shorter than one year.

One unit: a rate per year

Without this step a weekly figure, multiplied up to hundreds a year, would drown out a lifetime count of a few.

The score and the reading

The reference rates come from one reference answer, Briar Greenway's estimate: age 34, 21 years on both clocks, 6 relationships, in love 3 times, 2 heartbreaks, a longest relationship of 4 years, 24 people slept with, wanting it once a day, 3 different people a week and 9 orgasms a week. It is one fixed answer, not a measured group and not a statement of what is normal. The reference rate scores 50, twice it scores 67, ten times it 91; a true zero scores 0 and nothing reaches 100.

The reading is written REEQ over SEEQ, like a blood pressure: 50/50 and 20/80 share a midpoint and describe different people. The signed gap gives a tilt, which compares a person only with themselves:

Example: age 30, first relationship at 16, first sexual experience at 18, 5 relationships, in love twice, 2 heartbreaks, longest 3 years, 10 people, once a day, 1 different person a week, 5 orgasms a week, reads 55/38, leans relational. More relationships count as more relationship experience than one long one: at age 34, with the relationship clock starting at 16 and in love twice, 12 relationships with 2 heartbreaks and a longest of 1 year gives a REEQ of 48, while 2 relationships with no heartbreaks and a longest of 15 years gives 38.

The overlay: roles

Counts say how much; they cannot say of what kind. The overlay lays experience and expectation over a set of roles, Briar Greenway's idea, taken first from the sexual roles familiar from public kink tests and then given a relationship counterpart. Every role is answered twice:

"Not for me" counts as no wish and also marks a boundary, which part two keeps out of every number. Where a person has a percentage for a role from a kink test, that percentage ÷ 100 can stand in for X in research use; the public calculator keeps the three steps.

From the two answers comes reach, the part of a wish that goes beyond what the person has done:

Sexual roles

The sexual roles are the ones in Crushhh's existing role list, which uses the role names familiar from the BDSMTest results page. The descriptions here are our own, the questions are not BDSMTest's, and ThinkWell Labs has no affiliation with BDSMTest. All roles are between consenting adults.

Four sexual styles pair like with like and are set aside as mirrors: Switch, Experimentalist, Vanilla and Ageplayer. Non-monogamist is counted once, on the relationship side, as "open or non-monogamous".

Relationship roles

Nine pairs, drafted by Claude and ratified by Briar Greenway:

Six relationship shapes are mirrors and are answered for expectation only (No · Open to it · Yes): monogamous, open or non-monogamous, living together, formal commitment, children, and long distance. Four relationship expectation numbers are answered on ordered steps: days a week together (0 to 7), how long the next relationship should last (a few months to for life, five steps), partners at once (1 to 4 or more), and time before a commitment (under a month to none wanted, six steps).

Two double numbers

Experience and expectation are measured apart and then reunited, because each informs the other: what someone has done shapes what they want, and what they want shapes what they go on to do. For each side:

The count score is REEQ for the relationship side and SEEQ for the sexual side, unrounded. A person therefore carries REEQ/SEEQ and two double numbers, for example relationship 43/42 and sexual 25/27: experience over expectation. A large expectation over a small experience means much is wanted and little yet done; the reverse means much is done and little more is sought. Neither is better. The equal halves are explained under how much spread counts, where the same rule is used.

Part two · two people

Complements, mirrors, boundaries

Everything one person answers is compared with the other's in one of three ways.

• Complements are completed by their counterpart: one person in a role, the other in its partner role. Each pair is read in both directions, since either person can take either role. 19 pairs, 38 directions.
• Mirrors need to be shared: the six relationship shapes, the four relationship numbers, the four sexual styles and sexual appetite. These are the only places sameness is sought.
• Boundaries are where one person wants something the other has ruled out: a "not for me" on a role whose counterpart the other wants at least with curiosity, a "not for me" on a style the other wants, or a yes against a no on children or on monogamy. They are listed by name, apart from every number, so that a high score can never hide one.

Complement and lift

For each direction of each pair, with person P in a role and person Q in its counterpart:

When both want their half fully, the direction is met in full. When one wants it and the other does not, the wish is sought and unmet. Two people who are both curious meet a quarter of a full wish against half a wish sought, so they score half: the product rewards the level of shared wanting, not only its shape. If neither person wants any complementary role, Complement has no value and Together is not given.

Lift is the second half of the complement double number. It measures what one person has done that the other wants to try:

Supply needs both experience and willingness: someone who has been a Rigger but no longer wants to tie anyone supplies nothing. Where nobody reaches beyond their experience, Lift reads "nothing sought". Lift is reported but does not enter Together, because experience is neither positive nor negative: a couple who have both done everything they want are not worse paired than a couple where one will teach the other.

A correction. The earlier draft of this design took Complement from experience and reach alone. Under it, two people who are both experienced and both want a Dominant and Submissive dynamic would have scored "nothing sought", and experience would have counted as good. Complement now comes from expectation, and experience lives in Lift.

Accord

Each mirror item gives an accord between 0 and 1:

Appetite is the one place the tolerance settings from version 1 still apply. T says how large a difference in wanted frequency still counts as close:

The middle setting is defined so that a doubling scores exactly 80 (T = 1 ÷ √(2 ln 1.25)), the loose one so that a doubling scores 90. Whether appetite belongs among the mirrors at all is open: Kim, Muise and colleagues (2020) found that couples' combined level of desire, not their similarity, predicted satisfaction. Appetite is one item of five on its side, so its weight is small, and it is listed under open questions.

Spread: a cascade

Two couples can share a Complement and differ in shape. In one, everything rests on a single role; in the other, complementarity runs through planning and affection and protection and scenes, in both directions. Spread measures that shape. Briar Greenway asked for a couple number built with fractals; the structure that fits is a multiplicative cascade, the construction Mandelbrot (1974) used to describe how a quantity divides and redivides across scales.

The met wishes form a tree of four levels:

At each level, every branch divides its share among its children. The evenness of a division is its Shannon entropy over the largest entropy it could have, Pielou's evenness (1966); exp(entropy) is the effective number of children carrying the share (Jost, 2006).

The two sides are equal halves of a relationship, as in Accord, so the side level weighs each side's met wishes per direction it has room for; nine relationship pairs and ten sexual pairs then count alike. For a regular self-similar cascade that divides the same way at every level, each Dₖ equals the information dimension of the cascade relative to the full tree. This tree has only three levels and is not regular, so S is a finite, scale-by-scale reading of that dimension rather than a limit. It has no parameters.

The third level means a couple where one person always takes the same half of every pair has less spread than a couple where roles can be swapped. That is a choice about what spread means, and it can be revisited if outcome data show the direction level adds nothing.

Together

It is shown with Complement over Accord as a double number, Spread and Lift beside it, and boundaries listed below. The geometric mean means neither complement nor accord can be bought with the other: a couple who complement each other perfectly but disagree about children and monogamy, or agree on everything and want nothing of each other, are not rescued by the other number. A couple with full complement and full accord whose complementarity rests in a single role scores 50; spread across everything, 100.

How much spread counts

The factor (1 + S) ÷ 2 is the one weight no study sets. Briar Greenway left the decision to research. This is the reasoning.

What the research says about direction. Spread should count for something. In ecology, the insurance hypothesis holds that more independent contributors make a function steadier over time and raise its mean (Yachi and Loreau, 1999). In sociology, ties that carry several kinds of exchange at once are called multiplex (Verbrugge, 1979). Both point the same way: complementarity carried by many roles should survive the loss of any one.

What it says about the floor. Spread must not be able to zero a couple. Complementarity on a single axis, dominance and submissiveness in conversation, produced more satisfaction than similarity in two experiments (Dryer and Horowitz, 1997), and among 106 couples, those with high relationship quality were more dissimilar on dominance while being more similar on warmth (Markey and Markey, 2007). Concentrated complementarity is real complementarity. Multiplying by S alone would score such a couple 0.

What no study says is how large the effect of spread is. Write the factor as (1 − w) + w × S, where w is the true weight of spread between 0 and 1. With no evidence on w, the rule used here is Laplace's: treat every value as equally likely. The expected factor is then

So the half is not a chosen constant; it is the average over every weight spread could have. The same rule gives the other equal weights in this paper: Complement and Accord in the geometric mean, the two sides in Accord and Spread, and counts against roles in the experience number. It is a rule for not knowing, stated once and used everywhere, and it is to be replaced by an estimate of w from outcomes as soon as there are outcomes.

A worked pair

The calculator's example pair is invented and describes no real person. Person A, 31, mostly takes the leading roles: Planner, Initiator, Talker, Adventurer and Dominant regularly; Mentor, Protector, Brat tamer and Primal hunter tried and wanted; curious about Caretaker, Decider, Social connector, Sadist, Rigger and Exhibitionist; Submissive and Degrader not for them. Person B, 28, mostly takes the counterparts: Free spirit, Receiver, Listener, Homebody, Submissive and Brat regularly; curious about Degradee and Primal prey.

The directions level is 0 because every met wish runs one way: A always leads. The couple would score higher if some roles could be swapped. Relationship accord is lower than sexual accord because they differ on living together, formal commitment, children and long distance; none of those is a yes against a no on children or monogamy, so none is a boundary.

Depth, for research only

A further measure was considered and kept out of the public numbers. Depth would run the pair forward in a simple model: each round, each person's experience in a role moves toward what their partner can supply, until no reach remains. The number of rounds before the reach runs out is an escape time, in the manner of the Mandelbrot set's colouring. It is a dynamic picture of how long a couple would go on learning from each other. It needs a learning-rate constant that nothing measures, so it is reserved for research on outcome data, where that rate can be estimated.

Part three · standing

Decisions and their reasons

Decided by Briar Greenway unless marked otherwise.

• Align complementary types; do not match. "Matching is same same, and that isn't what we do."
• Separate experience from expectation, then reunite them as double numbers, because each influences and informs the other.
• Overlay experience and expectation on the roles, starting from the sexual roles of public kink tests and giving the relationship side the same treatment.
• Set like-with-like items aside as their own group in the formulae.
• The nine relationship pairs, drafted by Claude: "those are all the right pairs!"
• A couple number built with fractals. The cascade, Spread and Together were designed by Claude to that brief.
• How much spread counts, delegated to research and decided by Claude under the rule in how much spread counts.
• From version 1, unchanged: more relationships count as more experience than one long one; heartbreak is experience; no blanks; each clock starts at the first chosen experience; relationships and sex are kept separate; a relationship counts at any length; true figures, no caps or floors; no population figures as the reference; no comparison labels; answers stay on the person's device.

Where this sits among quotients

In the line of instruments associated with the Autism Research Centre, a quotient is a summed checklist. The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (Baron-Cohen and colleagues, 2001) has 50 items, each scoring one point. The Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004) follows the same pattern. The Vulnerability Experiences Quotient (Griffiths, Allison and colleagues, 2019), which prompted this work, counts adverse life experiences across ten areas of life, with an answer for "no opportunity" scored as zero, and reported internal consistency of 0.88 to 0.89.

REEQ and SEEQ are rates set against a reference, closer to the original sense of the word: William Stern's mental quotient of 1912, mental age over chronological age, which Lewis Terman multiplied by 100. The overlay is nearer the checklist tradition, one item per role. The couple measures have no precedent in that line; they borrow from interpersonal theory for what to compare and from ecology and the study of cascades for how to measure its shape.

From the Vulnerability Experiences Quotient the quotients borrow method, not content: building the questions with the people who will answer them, an explicit answer for "this never applied to me", reporting reliability, comparing against established measures, and running every analysis with and without adjustment for age.

What the evidence supports

For complements and mirrors kept apart. Interpersonal theory has long held that warmth invites warmth while dominance invites its opposite. Markey and Markey (2007) tested that model, often credited to Carson, against simpler ones in 106 couples. Only the model combining similarity on warmth with complementarity on dominance predicted relationship quality. High-quality couples were more similar on warmth and more dissimilar on dominance than low-quality ones; the dominance difference on its own was not significant. The same paper found that single people say they want partners similar to themselves on both, so what people ask for and what goes well can differ. Dryer and Horowitz (1997) found in two experiments that pairs whose dominant and submissive styles complemented each other were more satisfied than pairs with similar styles. These studies concern everyday interpersonal style, not the sexual roles here, and the relationship pairs extend the logic beyond dominance.

For reach and lift. Couples who share novel and arousing activities report higher relationship quality, and in laboratory experiments a brief novel task raised it more than a mundane one (Aron and colleagues, 2000). Lift measures the capacity for exactly that: one partner can bring the other something new.

For level over sameness. Kim, Muise and colleagues (2020), in 366 heterosexual couples, found that similarity of sexual desire had no unique effect on satisfaction, while the couple's combined level did. This is why met wishes are a product of both people's expectation, and why appetite is the weakest item in Accord.

For spread. The direction of the spread term rests on the insurance hypothesis in ecology (Yachi and Loreau, 1999) and on multiplexity in sociology (Verbrugge, 1979). Neither was tested on couples, and neither says how large the effect should be.

Against overclaiming. Across 313 studies, actual similarity predicted attraction overall but not within existing relationships (Montoya, Horton and Kirchner, 2008). Across 43 longitudinal couples studies, how people see their own relationship predicted up to 45 percent of satisfaction, individual traits up to 21 percent, and effects depending on the combination of both partners' traits were small (Joel, Eastwick and colleagues, 2020). Together is exactly such a combination. It may well explain little, and the testing is designed to find out. This paper cites no study of outcomes for complementary sexual roles; that side rests on the same logic, untested.

The word "expectation" in the names is supported in a weaker form than it might seem: imagined practice changes performance, but less than real practice (Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2015). Experience and expectation are therefore measured apart and shown side by side.

Privacy by construction

• The calculator stores nothing. It runs entirely in the browser, keeps nothing after the tab closes and is not permitted to make any network request.
• In Crushhh, count answers never leave the device. The server receives only REEQ, SEEQ and EEQ, refuses to store answers, and answers stored by an earlier version were erased.
• The overlay is not yet in Crushhh. Couple measures need both people's role answers in one place, which device-only storage cannot give. The proposal is to hold role answers on the server only under the app's existing consent for sex-life information, return only Together, Complement, Accord, Spread and named boundaries, and keep the coarse steps and slow-change rules of version 1. That is not decided.
• Coarse and slow. Crushhh returns figures in steps of 25 until two people have matched and 10 after, and a saved reading can change once every two weeks, so that nobody can work out another person's answers by probing.
• Sharing is opt-in. A reading is shown to a match only if its owner chooses.

Limits

• Self-report. Answers depend on memory, honesty and how each person reads a role's name.
• Three steps per answer. Never, tried, regularly and no, curious, yes are coarse. Percentages would be finer but would invite false precision.
• Chosen lists. The 19 pairs and 15 mirror items are choices. A missing role, or a pair that is not truly complementary for some people, changes every couple measure.
• Equal weights. Every weight here comes from one rule for not knowing. They are defensible defaults, not findings.
• An estimated reference. The reference answer is an estimate; it sets where 50 sits in REEQ and SEEQ and how much each count weighs.
• Short histories. Rates over one or two years are noisy.
• No data yet. Nothing in this paper reports reliability or outcomes.

How it will be tested

1. Question review with users, following the participatory approach of the Vulnerability Experiences Quotient, including whether each relationship pair reads as two halves of one thing.
2. Reliability. Internal consistency for the count quotients and test-retest stability for the overlay over two weeks.
3. Comparison with established measures. SEEQ against the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (Penke and Asendorpf, 2008); the relationship roles against a measure of interpersonal dominance and warmth.
4. Outcomes. With separate, explicit consent: whether Together, and each of its parts, relates to conversations continuing, meetings taking place and later relationship satisfaction. The aim is to estimate the weight of spread, the share of counts against roles, and whether the direction level and appetite earn their place.
5. Against sameness. The version 1 rate closeness will be run beside Together. If sameness predicts as well, the complementary design has to answer for it.
6. Short histories and age. Every analysis with and without clocks under three years, and with and without adjustment for age.

Open questions

• The weight of spread, now the uniform-prior average (1 + S) ÷ 2, to be estimated from outcomes.
• Appetite in Accord. Kim and colleagues' finding suggests combined level matters more than similarity. Appetite could leave Accord, or enter as a level rather than a difference.
• The direction level of Spread. Whether swappable roles matter, or whether a fixed leader and follower is just as good.
• Counts against roles in the experience number, now half and half.
• Boundaries as a hard stop. They are listed, never scored. Whether Crushhh should hide a suggestion with an unresolved boundary until both people have seen it is a product decision.
• Crushhh is still on version 1. The app and its database compare REEQ and SEEQ by rate closeness, which is sameness. Replacing that with these measures needs the overlay built, the privacy decision above, and Briar Greenway's go-ahead.
• Reference units instead of a reference answer (proposed by Claude, not adopted): declared round units, such as one a year for lifetime counts, so that no person's estimate sets 50.

Try it

The calculator takes two people's answers and shows each reading and every couple measure, with an invented example pair. It is for adults only, runs entirely in your browser, and stores and sends nothing.

Provenance

This paper comes from working sessions between Briar Greenway and Claude, an AI model made by Anthropic. Contributions are attributed so each can be credited accurately.

Briar Greenway: the quotients REEQ, SEEQ and EEQ and their names; the count questions, rates, score, reference answer, reading, gap and tilt; every version 1 decision listed above; the premise of aligning complementary types rather than matching; separating experience from expectation and reuniting them as double numbers; overlaying them on the roles of public kink tests and on a relationship counterpart; setting like-with-like items aside as their own group; ratifying the pairs; asking for a couple number built with fractals; and delegating the weight of spread to research.

Claude: the analysis against the Vulnerability Experiences Quotient and the wider literature, and the citations; the relationship pairs, mirrors and expectation numbers as drafted; the role descriptions; Complement, Lift, Accord, the boundary rules, the cascade and Spread, and Together; the correction moving Complement from experience to expectation; the uniform-prior rule for the weights; Depth; the tolerance settings; the testing plan; the calculator; and the drafting of this paper.

Joint: the privacy design and the overall synthesis.

References

1. Aron, A., et al. (2000). Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273
2. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.
3. Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163–175.
4. Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 592. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.592
5. Griffiths, S., Allison, C., et al. (2019). The Vulnerability Experiences Quotient (VEQ): A study of vulnerability, mental health and life satisfaction in autistic adults. Autism Research. doi.org/10.1002/aur.2162
6. Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., et al. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
7. Jost, L. (2006). Entropy and diversity. Oikos, 113(2), 363–375.
8. Kim, J. J., Muise, A., et al. (2020). Are couples more satisfied when they match in sexual desire? New insights from response surface analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi.org/10.1177/1948550620926770
9. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1974). Intermittent turbulence in self-similar cascades: Divergence of high moments and dimension of the carrier. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 62(2), 331–358. doi.org/10.1017/S0022112074000711
10. Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517–533. doi.org/10.1177/0265407507079241
11. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922.
12. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.
13. Pielou, E. C. (1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131–144. doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
14. Verbrugge, L. M. (1979). Multiplexity in adult friendships. Social Forces, 57(4), 1286–1309. doi.org/10.1093/sf/57.4.1286
15. Yachi, S., & Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(4), 1463. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463
16. "IQ." In Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent. SAGE. (Stern's mental quotient, 1912, and Terman's multiplication by 100.)
17. Mental practice and physical practice in motor learning. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience (2015). doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00105
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Survey of Family Growth, key statistics, 2015–2019: median number of opposite-sex partners in lifetime among sexually experienced women and men aged 25–49.

© 2026 ThinkWell Labs LLC. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: share it unchanged, cite Briar Morgan Greenway, ThinkWell Labs, and do not sell it. Version 2.0, October 2026; version 1.0 compared people by the closeness of their rates and is superseded. A proposal for a measurement instrument; not psychological, medical or relationship advice.