Purpose
This document defines the required output schema and scoring system for the student profile artifact. The goal is to produce profiles that are specific, useful, evidence-grounded, and consistent across students.
Final Profile Schema
| Section | Purpose | Required |
|---|
| Cover | Provide student name, profile type, version, and use context. | Yes |
| Executive Summary | Condense the core identity pattern without losing specificity. | Yes |
| Identity Summary | Explain the student’s recurring personal and professional pattern. | Yes |
| Educational and Experience Overview | Ground the profile in real context. | Yes |
| Cognitive and Thinking Style | Describe how the student processes complexity. | Yes |
| Communication Style | Describe how the student communicates and influences. | Yes |
| Motivational Drivers | Identify primary, secondary, and weak motivators. | Yes |
| Work Style Analysis | Define best-fit environments and contribution pattern. | Yes |
| Career Direction Signals | Name likely-fit paths with reasoning. | Yes |
| Blind Spots and Risks | Add realism and reduce generic positivity. | Yes |
| Contradictions and Nuance | Capture complexity and avoid over-simplification. | Yes |
| Interview Talking Points | Translate the profile into career-useful language. | Yes |
| LinkedIn/About Draft | Provide immediate usable professional copy. | Yes |
| aboutme.md Export | Produce portable AI-context version. | Yes |
| Evidence Map | Separate direct support, inference, and unknowns. | Yes |
| Final Assessment | Close with high-confidence synthesis. | Yes |
Signal Scoring Framework
| Score Area | Scale | Definition |
|---|
| Evidence Strength | 1–5 | How strongly the profile claim is supported by student statements or behavior. |
| Specificity | 1–5 | How unique and non-generic the claim is. |
| Career Utility | 1–5 | How useful the section is for jobs, interviews, or applications. |
| Student Recognition | 1–5 | Likelihood that the student says, 'This sounds like me.' |
| Risk of Overreach | 1–5 | Likelihood the claim goes beyond available evidence. |
| Actionability | 1–5 | Whether the student can use the output immediately. |
Required Claim Standard
Every major interpretive claim should be assigned one of three evidence statuses.
| Status | Definition | Allowed Usage |
|---|
| Directly Supported | Student explicitly stated or clearly described it. | Can be written confidently. |
| Inferred | Pattern appears across answers but was not directly stated. | Must be phrased as a likely pattern. |
| Unknown | Insufficient evidence. | Must not be converted into a confident claim. |
Profile Quality Rubric
| Dimension | Excellent | Weak |
|---|
| Specificity | Contains concrete patterns and examples tied to the student. | Could apply to almost any student. |
| Balance | Includes strengths, risks, contradictions, and unknowns. | Only flattering or promotional. |
| Usability | Includes interview, LinkedIn, and application-ready language. | Only reflective prose. |
| Evidence Discipline | Claims are supported or labeled as inferred. | Interpretation appears unsupported. |
| Tone | Professional, clear, grounded. | Therapeutic, mystical, inflated, or corporate. |
| Recognition | Student sees themselves in the output. | Student feels described by a generic template. |
Minimum Acceptance Criteria
- Student recognition score of 8/10 or higher in pilot testing.
- No unsupported diagnostic or clinical claims.
- Every career recommendation includes reasoning.
- All major claims appear in the evidence map.
- The profile includes blind spots or risks.
- The final profile includes at least three immediately usable career artifacts.
Anti-Flattery Rules
- Do not call the student exceptional unless there is direct evidence.
- Do not frame ordinary traits as rare genius.
- Do not turn uncertainty into destiny.
- Do not overstate leadership if the evidence only supports reliability.
- Do not imply career certainty where only directional fit exists.
- Do not remove nuance to make the profile sound more impressive.