Make an agreement usable for the people relying on it
Six items ask how you checked, accepted, changed and handed over commitments in the past four weeks. The reading concerns your selected habits, without assigning a reliability grade.
For items 1, 2, 4 and 5 keep the chosen 1–5 value. For items 3 and 6 use 6 minus that value. Add the six contributions, divide by six and round to one decimal. One unscored response withholds this mean.
What a commitment means in this form
The questions concern checking what is feasible, informing people of an expected change, knowing what a handover involves and considering existing promises before adding one. They can apply to paid work, study, volunteering or an ordinary shared project. The form does not know whether a deadline was reasonable, what authority you held or whether it was safe to speak. Its four-week window helps you choose examples; it is an editorial recall rule rather than a validated measure of dependability.
Follow the reversal before reading the mean
For example, raw responses of 4, 4, 2, 3, 4 and 1 become contributions of 4, 4, 4, 3, 4 and 5. Their sum is 24, so the displayed mean is 4.0. Reversal aligns the direction of these particular statements; it does not detect lies. The mean describes the coded choices, not a probability that you will keep the next promise. Other groups remain separate, with no overall reliability band or rule that the smallest mean determines your worth.
A changed deadline can still leave a useful agreement
Imagine agreeing to send a draft on Thursday, then learning on Tuesday that an input will arrive on Friday. An update can identify the missing input, what can be sent on Thursday and which new date needs agreement. The recipient still gets a decision they can use. A counterexample is silently changing the date and assuming everyone will notice. This fictional situation illustrates information flow; it does not imply that a person must absorb the delay through unpaid work or guarantee outcomes beyond their control.
Give opportunity and constraints a place in the answer
A larger coded mean means you endorsed more of the listed commitment habits after reversal. Workload, clear agreements, access to information and your room to negotiate can influence the answers. A smaller mean therefore does not establish laziness or a stable character flaw. Never is appropriate when a relevant opportunity existed but the action did not occur. If there was no such opportunity or you cannot judge, choose unscored. That withholds this group alone and does not insert a low value.
Check one live agreement with a small update
If useful and safe, choose one low-stakes agreement you already have. Write the deliverable, the next date and a dependency that could change the plan. Check whether the affected person has the same understanding, using a communication route you are permitted to use. The aim is a clear shared next step, not a longer promise or a higher quiz score. You can decline this exercise, renegotiate an unrealistic demand or use a support person when the communication setting is difficult.
Keep a specific record rather than a personal grade
A short note might say what was originally agreed, when new information appeared and what update was useful. It can support discussion of one task without branding a colleague reliable or unreliable. This original bilingual bank has no established reliability, norms or cross-language measurement equivalence. It cannot support hiring, promotion, discipline or a prediction of misconduct. The other three complete readings remain available even if this mean is missing, and no one needs to submit private workplace events or answers.