Purpose
This document defines the intake and interview workflow for the student profile development product. It is designed to create enough structured context to produce a profile that feels specific, recognizable, useful, and grounded in what the student actually says.
The interview must collect evidence before interpretation. The system should not jump directly from a few answers to a polished identity claim.
Workflow Overview
| Phase | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 0A: Rapport | Establish psychological safety without pretending to be therapy. | Student understands the purpose, boundaries, and tone. |
| Phase 0B: Context Collection | Collect baseline academic, work, activity, and life context. | Structured background file. |
| Phase 1: Standardization | Convert raw answers into normalized signals. | Comparable signal map. |
| Phase 2: Qualification | Test strength of signals and separate strong evidence from weak evidence. | Evidence-weighted profile inputs. |
| Phase 3: Difficult Questions | Surface contradictions, tradeoffs, and blind spots. | Nuance layer. |
| Final Profile Generation | Produce the student-facing profile document. | Profile PDF/HTML/aboutme.md package. |
Phase 0A: Rapport
The opening phase should reduce defensiveness without becoming overly casual or therapeutic. The goal is to help the student answer honestly and specifically.
- Explain that this is not a test.
- Explain that there are no correct answers.
- Explain that specific examples are more useful than polished answers.
- Explain that uncertainty is acceptable.
- Explain that the final profile will distinguish direct evidence from interpretation.
Prompt: This process is designed to help you build a useful profile of how you think, work, communicate, and make decisions. It is not a personality test and it is not therapy. Specific examples are more useful than perfect answers. If you are unsure, say so directly.Phase 0B: Context Collection
This phase gathers the facts needed to interpret later answers. It should not overreach into sensitive personal history unless the student volunteers information relevant to their goals.
| Category | Questions | Required? |
|---|---|---|
| Education | Major, school, graduation year, favorite and least favorite courses. | Yes |
| Work Experience | Jobs, internships, volunteer roles, freelance work. | Yes |
| Leadership and Activities | Clubs, athletics, projects, organizations, informal responsibilities. | Yes |
| Career Direction | Known interests, rejected paths, industries under consideration. | Yes |
| Constraints | Location, finances, family expectations, visa/work authorization if relevant. | Optional and user-controlled |
| Personal Context | Only what the student wants included and only if relevant. | Optional |
Core Interview Question Bank
| Domain | Question | Signal Sought |
|---|---|---|
| Strengths | What do people usually rely on you for? | Repeated external validation pattern. |
| Energy | What kind of work makes time pass quickly? | Motivational pull. |
| Friction | What kinds of tasks drain you even when you are capable of doing them? | Misfit signals. |
| Pressure | How do you behave when a group is confused or stressed? | Stress response and team role. |
| Learning | What topics do you naturally investigate without being assigned? | Intrinsic curiosity. |
| Values | What makes work feel worth doing? | Value drivers. |
| Communication | When do you feel most misunderstood? | Communication gap. |
| Environment | What kind of team brings out your best work? | Fit conditions. |
| Contradiction | What is something about you that people often get wrong? | Nuance and correction. |
Phase 1: Standardization
Raw answers should be normalized into comparable signals before profile writing begins. This avoids the model over-weighting recent answers or unusually polished statements.
| Signal Field | Allowed Values / Format |
|---|---|
| Signal Name | Short label such as Systems Thinking, Empathy, Analytical Discipline. |
| Evidence Type | Direct statement, repeated pattern, external feedback, behavioral example, inferred pattern. |
| Strength | Strong, moderate, weak, unknown. |
| Confidence | High, medium, low. |
| Supporting Quote or Summary | The exact answer or concise evidence note. |
| Risk of Overinterpretation | Low, medium, high. |
Phase 2: Qualification
Qualification prevents flattering but unsupported profile language. Every major claim should pass a support test.
- Does the student directly state this?
- Is there behavioral evidence?
- Does it appear more than once?
- Is there a contradiction?
- Would the student recognize this as accurate?
- Could this be generic enough to apply to anyone?
Phase 3: Difficult Questions
The difficult-question phase adds the nuance that makes the final profile feel real instead of promotional.
- Where do you over-function?
- What do you avoid because you dislike being bad at it?
- What strength becomes a problem when overused?
- What environment makes you act unlike yourself?
- What would your best friend say you are not seeing clearly?
- What are you good at but do not want to be known for?
Handoff Package
Before final profile generation, the workflow should produce a handoff object containing the structured inputs below.
- Student context summary
- Signal map
- Evidence map
- Contradiction map
- Career direction signals
- Rejected or weakly supported claims
- Known unknowns
- Sensitive material exclusion notes
- Final profile generation instructions
Quality Checklist
- The final profile uses specific language, not generic praise.
- Every major claim is supported by evidence or labeled as inference.
- The profile includes risks and blind spots.
- The student could use parts of the output in interviews or applications.
- The document avoids therapy, diagnosis, and destiny language.
- The final document distinguishes who the student is now from possible future paths.