Separate checkable facts from a provisional interpretation
This part asks about assuming ill intent, deception or targeting without enough evidence, not reasonable caution, existing evidence or privacy.
Complete all 28 selections about ordinary recalled interactions in the past four weeks, from 1 Never to 5 Almost always. Each four-item part needs three ratings for a one-decimal mean; rated reverse items contribute six minus the response, while NA is unscored and not zero-filled. Minimum counts and interpretations are website completeness rules, not the study instrument, norms or clinical cutoffs. Seven continuous readings produce no total, difficulty percentage or highest-score personality, and close or equal means assign no type. Decimal differences establish neither significance, causes nor observer judgments.
What this part asks
Four original items ask about interpreting unclear information as disadvantage before checking, remaining certain an ordinary explanation is deception without new evidence, reading a neutral action as targeting, and separating facts from guesses. The last is reverse-keyed. These concern your recalled interpretations in four weeks, not mind-reading accuracy or an assessment of whether someone else is actually trustworthy.
Reading higher, lower and differing responses
A higher mean reflects more reported certainty in the described unclear situations, not paranoia, anxiety or another condition. A lower mean proves neither accurate judgment nor a duty to trust everyone. You may jump to a conclusion with ambiguous messages while checking facts elsewhere. Retain that difference. A mean lacks the whole history and cannot determine whether particular treatment you experienced was real.
An original clarification example
In ordinary collaboration where checking is safe, a short reply may leave a practical ambiguity. You could ask, “Do you mean that time works, or just that you saw the message?” This checks one question without deciding whether someone likes you. You can also retain uncertainty and not ask immediately. The original example guarantees no answer and requires no disclosure of every concern.
Counterexample: caution with evidence
Clear records, repeated broken agreements or an uncertain risk can warrant caution. Protecting yourself, requesting verification and keeping privacy are not automatically unreasonable suspicion. The items concern certainty without enough basis, not denial of events that occurred. A lower score guarantees no one else’s safety, and a higher score does not remove your right to protect yourself or raise a reasonable question.
Compare the other parts
Interpreting someone’s intentions differs from withholding information yourself and does not automatically mean an aggressive response. You can be uncertain about trust without insults, pressure or overriding decisions. Seven parts remain separate rather than filling one from another. They determine neither who controls whom nor a special personality combination, relationship compatibility or clinical subtype from close or equal means.
When information remains incomplete
An unclear situation can remain undecided, with limits kept as needed. This guide does not ask you to ignore danger, cancel necessary checks or prove trust to someone who makes you uncomfortable. A score replaces neither records, responsibilities nor the real setting, and clears or proves no one’s motives. Interpretations can change with new information; no label requires the same judgment forever.
Try a fact-and-interpretation note
For one low-stakes matter, make two private columns: what you actually saw or heard and your current interpretation. Clarify a detail only if safe and necessary, retaining unknown when unanswered. Do not turn the exercise into repeated questioning or inspection of someone’s private information. No sharing, upload or argument about who is right is required; distinguish information sources and leave room to revise.
A mean is not an accuracy score
Complete all 28 selections. A four-item part needs three ratings for a one-decimal mean; the reverse facts item contributes six minus the rating, while NA is not zero-filled. The minimum is a website completeness rule, not a study cutoff. There is no accuracy, lie-detection or diagnosis score. Insufficient information retains all seven guides without a neutral replacement, and decimal changes do not establish a change in judgment ability.
Original items and research scope
FermatMind independently authored these 28 items and seven guides. Sleep and colleagues’ formal 2021 abstract reports seven antagonism domains; only that abstract and bibliographic information were verified. The paper, its 234-item clinical pool, standard instruments and competitors’ 35 or 21 items are not this bank. Related concepts provide everyday background, without equating selected behaviours with clinical research constructs. Verbal responses do not cover all physical aggression, and consequence consideration does not cover all risk seeking. There are no established website psychometrics, norms, English–Chinese equivalence or researcher endorsement. Results support neither diagnosis, typing others, moral ranking, career judgments, relationship-safety assessment nor harm prediction.