Make the status and source of a claim clear
Six items concern completed versus ongoing work, contributions, uncertainty, permitted sharing and known limitations. The result does not establish honesty or detect deception.
Items 13, 14, 16 and 17 keep their values. Reverse items 15 and 18 as 6 minus the selected value, then average all six contributions to one decimal.
What these six statements cover
The questions concern how you reported progress, attributed shared contributions, stated uncertainty, checked a sharing permission and disclosed a known limitation. They do not collect evidence of an incident or verify whether an answer is accurate. High endorsement cannot certify integrity, and reverse statements are not a hidden lie detector. The title uses ordinary work language. This original bank is not an occupational integrity test and has no established ability to predict misconduct or to judge someone’s moral character.
Read the coded choices without converting them into proof
For raw responses 4, 4, 1, 5, 4 and 2, reversal gives contributions 4, 4, 5, 5, 4 and 4. Their sum is 26; 26 divided by six is about 4.3333 and displays as 4.3. A person can select those answers for many reasons, including memory or an interpretation of the wording. The arithmetic cannot tell which explanation is true. It is not a probability of honest conduct, an employer risk grade or a basis for accusing someone else.
A progress update can distinguish three states
Imagine preparing a fictional team presentation. You have drafted two slides, a colleague supplied the figures, and one figure is not yet verified. An accurate update can distinguish the draft, the colleague’s contribution and the unverified figure. A counterexample is saying everything is complete because approval is expected soon. This is an example of clarifying a statement, not an invitation to reveal restricted files. A person can state that a relevant detail cannot be shared and use an authorised route for any necessary clarification.
Privacy and safety are part of the context
Accurate communication does not require unlimited disclosure to any audience. Confidentiality, access permissions, coercion, role limits and safe reporting routes matter. The questionnaire cannot resolve a legal or workplace dispute about those boundaries. When no relevant opportunity existed, or you cannot make a judgment, choose unscored rather than assuming a low value. A missing response withholds this group alone. No rule treats a skip as suspicious, and complete other readings remain visible without an overall moral score.
Clarify one ordinary update you are permitted to share
If useful, choose a harmless update already within your remit. Separate what is complete, what remains uncertain and whose contribution you are referring to. Check that the recipient and sharing method are permitted before sending anything. You can do the exercise privately without contacting anyone. The useful change is a clearer factual statement, not a confession, a public display of virtue or a higher score. For a serious concern, use an appropriate existing support or reporting route rather than relying on a quiz.
Use evidence for a claim and permission for a disclosure
A brief record can note the claim, its source and its current verification status without storing private workplace material in the questionnaire. This supports a discussion of a specific communication choice. It does not prove a stable trait or justify screening, discipline or comparison between colleagues. There are no norms, validity findings or cross-language equivalence established for this edition. All four full guides stay available even if you decline every item; the report never requires another person’s answers or an account of a real incident.