These are proposed operational scales in the same definition / seven anchors / cues / distinctions format. They refine the description; they are not claimed to be mutually independent or empirically calibrated.
Body configuration and movement
BOD-OPN
Postural openness
How exposed or enclosed the torso and limbs are relative to the person’s support and task.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-OPN value | Anchor · Postural openness |
|---|
| 0 | Torso tightly enclosed by limbs or objects |
| 1 | Mostly enclosed; only small openings |
| 2 | Some protective crossing or inward folding |
| 3 | Neither conspicuously enclosed nor exposed |
| 4 | Torso mostly exposed; limbs allow access |
| 5 | Broad, sustained openness of torso and limbs |
| 6 | Maximum feasible exposure and opening for this body configuration |
Postural openness · Observation notes
What to look for: Record shoulders, elbows, hands, chest and pelvic orientation separately; note props and restraints.
Do not confuse with: Open posture does not establish trust, emotional openness or receptivity. Crossing arms for warmth is still a configuration, not a defensive motive. Refines Receptivity & Influencability (REC-INF) without replacing it.
BOD-EXP
Occupied bodily space
Expansion of the body’s occupied space relative to its ordinary supported configuration.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-EXP value | Anchor · Occupied bodily space |
|---|
| 0 | Maximally contracted into a small envelope |
| 1 | Strong contraction |
| 2 | Some contraction |
| 3 | Ordinary occupied space |
| 4 | Noticeable expansion |
| 5 | Large, sustained expansion |
| 6 | Maximum feasible reach or spread |
Occupied bodily space · Observation notes
What to look for: Limb spread, torso extension, reach and posture relative to a stable camera view.
Do not confuse with: Expansion differs from openness, motion amplitude, social power and apparent size caused by camera perspective.
BOD-ORI
Orientation toward the interaction target
Alignment of the visible body with a documented partner, object or shared task.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view and an identified interaction target.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual_with_target
| BOD-ORI value | Anchor · Orientation toward the interaction target |
|---|
| 0 | Body directly turned away |
| 1 | Mostly turned away |
| 2 | Oblique orientation away |
| 3 | Side-on or mixed orientation |
| 4 | Mostly turned toward target |
| 5 | Sustained direct orientation |
| 6 | All available body regions strongly oriented toward target |
Orientation toward the interaction target · Observation notes
What to look for: Head, shoulders, pelvis and feet can point in different directions; preserve that vector.
Do not confuse with: This is spatial alignment, not affection or attention inferred from posture. If no target is established, use N/A (not applicable or not assessable here).
BOD-SYM
Bilateral postural symmetry
Similarity of left and right postural organisation during comparable task phases.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-SYM value | Anchor · Bilateral postural symmetry |
|---|
| 0 | Strongly asymmetric throughout |
| 1 | Large sustained asymmetry |
| 2 | Repeated moderate asymmetry |
| 3 | Mixed or mild task-related asymmetry |
| 4 | Mostly symmetric |
| 5 | Strong symmetry with brief departures |
| 6 | Near-mirrored configuration throughout |
Bilateral postural symmetry · Observation notes
What to look for: Shoulder height, weight distribution, limb arrangement; use the person’s own feasible movement range.
Do not confuse with: Not a measure of health, beauty or motor competence. One-handed work and camera angle can explain asymmetry.
BOD-STB
Postural stability
Observed maintenance of support and balance under the demands visible in the scene.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-STB value | Anchor · Postural stability |
|---|
| 0 | Support repeatedly fails or collapses |
| 1 | Frequent major corrective catches |
| 2 | Repeated instability interrupts the task |
| 3 | Ordinary corrections maintain support |
| 4 | Stable with small corrections |
| 5 | Very steady through visible disturbance |
| 6 | Exceptionally stable through substantial visible disturbance |
Postural stability · Observation notes
What to look for: Sway, stepping corrections, slips, recovery and support changes.
Do not confuse with: Without disturbance evidence, do not award exceptional stability. A stable seated body is not more skilled than an active climber.
BOD-RIG
Movement rigidity
Constraint of joints and transitions into fixed, angular or resistant movement patterns.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-RIG value | Anchor · Movement rigidity |
|---|
| 0 | Freely yielding, highly fluid articulation |
| 1 | Very supple transitions |
| 2 | Slight stiffness only |
| 3 | Mixed supple and stiff movement |
| 4 | Noticeably stiff transitions |
| 5 | Strongly fixed joints and restricted transitions |
| 6 | Near-total visible rigidity when movement is attempted |
Movement rigidity · Observation notes
What to look for: Neck, shoulders, elbows, spine and knees; distinguish held stillness from attempted movement.
Do not confuse with: Not a diagnosis of muscle tone. Complements Muscular Tension (PHY-TEN) and Movement Flow (KIN-FLO); immobility alone cannot establish rigidity.
BOD-ADP
Self-directed regulatory movement
Prominence of visible self-touch, rubbing, grooming or repetitive object handling that is not the main practical task.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-ADP value | Anchor · Self-directed regulatory movement |
|---|
| 0 | None during an adequate observation window |
| 1 | One brief minor instance |
| 2 | Occasional unobtrusive instances |
| 3 | Recurring but secondary |
| 4 | Frequent and noticeably interruptive |
| 5 | Dominates substantial portions of the beat |
| 6 | Nearly continuous; repeatedly displaces the task |
Self-directed regulatory movement · Observation notes
What to look for: Mark each event, body region and timing; “regulatory” is a functional hypothesis unless context supports it.
Do not confuse with: Does not prove anxiety, deception, a disorder or an involuntary movement.
BOD-RST
Motor restlessness
Repeated repositioning or movement unrelated to progress on the immediate task.
Evidence needed: A usable visual view of the relevant body region.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: visual
| BOD-RST value | Anchor · Motor restlessness |
|---|
| 0 | Sustained stillness apart from necessary task motion |
| 1 | Rare small repositioning |
| 2 | Occasional shifting |
| 3 | Ordinary intermittent shifting |
| 4 | Frequent shifts, fidgeting or pacing |
| 5 | Persistent movement competes with the task |
| 6 | Almost continuous restless movement prevents sustained settling |
Motor restlessness · Observation notes
What to look for: Weight shifts, foot motion, pacing, starts and stops; compare within the same opportunity window.
Do not confuse with: A running task is not restlessness; low restlessness is not evidence of comfort.
Face and gaze
FAC-TEN
Visible facial tension
Apparent contraction or bracing of visible facial regions, recorded region by region.
Evidence needed: The relevant facial regions are visible.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: face_visible
| FAC-TEN value | Anchor · Visible facial tension |
|---|
| 0 | Very loose facial set without visible bracing |
| 1 | Minimal regional contraction |
| 2 | Mild local contraction |
| 3 | Ordinary expression-related contraction |
| 4 | Clear sustained contraction in one or more regions |
| 5 | Strong jaw, brow or lip bracing across the beat |
| 6 | Extreme sustained facial bracing or clenching |
Visible facial tension · Observation notes
What to look for: Brow, eyelids, jaw, lips and chin; record onset, release and asymmetry.
Do not confuse with: Visible muscular appearance is not measured physiological tone. Separate expressive movement Facial mobility (FAC-MOB) and whole-body Muscular Tension (PHY-TEN).
FAC-MOB
Facial mobility
Frequency and range of visible facial changes within a beat.
Evidence needed: The relevant facial regions are visible.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: face_visible
| FAC-MOB value | Anchor · Facial mobility |
|---|
| 0 | No discernible facial change in a sufficiently visible interval |
| 1 | Rare tiny change |
| 2 | Occasional small changes |
| 3 | Ordinary responsive facial variation |
| 4 | Frequent clear changes |
| 5 | Rich, nearly continuous variation across several regions |
| 6 | Rapid, extensive changes throughout the beat |
Facial mobility · Observation notes
What to look for: Count and time changes rather than judging a single expressive still.
Do not confuse with: Low mobility can be deliberate containment, camera limitations or an individual baseline; not emotional absence.
FAC-ASY
Facial expressive asymmetry
Difference between visible left and right facial action during an expression.
Evidence needed: The relevant facial regions are visible.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: face_visible
| FAC-ASY value | Anchor · Facial expressive asymmetry |
|---|
| 0 | Near-mirrored action |
| 1 | Very small intermittent difference |
| 2 | Mild repeated difference |
| 3 | Clear but moderate asymmetry |
| 4 | Strong unilateral expression in several moments |
| 5 | One-sided action dominates most of the beat |
| 6 | Almost entirely unilateral expressive action |
Facial expressive asymmetry · Observation notes
What to look for: Use frontal-enough visibility; store static baseline asymmetry separately from changing expression.
Do not confuse with: Do not infer neurological status, dishonesty or contempt from asymmetry alone.
GAZ-CON
Partner-directed gaze contact
Share of available time in which the visible gaze is directed toward the identified interaction partner.
Evidence needed: Both eyes and the relevant target are visible.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: eyes_and_target_visible
| GAZ-CON value | Anchor · Partner-directed gaze contact |
|---|
| 0 | No observed partner-directed gaze |
| 1 | Very brief isolated looks |
| 2 | Occasional short looks |
| 3 | Intermittent shared orientation |
| 4 | Frequent sustained looks |
| 5 | Almost continuous contact with brief breaks |
| 6 | Unbroken partner-directed fixation over the unit |
Partner-directed gaze contact · Observation notes
What to look for: Retain durations and uncertainty; distinguish face-directed gaze from verified mutual eye contact.
Do not confuse with: Contact has culture-, task- and person-dependent meanings. It is not a direct measure of honesty or social skill.
GAZ-SCN
Gaze exploration
Rate and breadth of changes among visible or inferable gaze targets.
Evidence needed: The eyes are visible clearly enough to assess.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: eyes_visible
| GAZ-SCN value | Anchor · Gaze exploration |
|---|
| 0 | One sustained target, no scanning |
| 1 | Rare small shift |
| 2 | Occasional shifts within a narrow region |
| 3 | Ordinary changes among a few targets |
| 4 | Frequent shifts across the scene |
| 5 | Rapid scanning over many targets |
| 6 | Continuous wide-ranging scanning with little dwell |
Gaze exploration · Observation notes
What to look for: Target, dwell duration, head versus eye movement and any missed visibility.
Do not confuse with: Scanning does not establish hypervigilance; a search task may fully account for it.
Bodily expression and recovery
PHY-BRT
Respiratory disruption in the performance
Observable disruption of breath rhythm or breath support relative to the task.
Evidence needed: Audible breath or visible respiratory movement.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visible_breath
| PHY-BRT value | Anchor · Respiratory disruption in the performance |
|---|
| 0 | Even, unbroken breathing through the unit |
| 1 | One slight irregularity |
| 2 | Occasional breath interruption |
| 3 | Noticeable but manageable irregularity |
| 4 | Repeated breath disruption changes phrasing or movement |
| 5 | Severe disruption repeatedly stops the task |
| 6 | Breath disruption dominates; coherent action or phrasing scarcely continues |
Respiratory disruption in the performance · Observation notes
What to look for: Audible inhalation, breath holds, chest movement when visible, recovery gaps and phrase truncation.
Do not confuse with: Sound alone does not measure oxygenation or diagnose breathlessness. Source, editing and voluntary imitation remain separate.
PHY-TRM
Visible or audible trembling
Prominence of repeated oscillatory movement or vocal tremble in the available channel.
Evidence needed: Usable audio, visual evidence, or both; name the channel.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visual
| PHY-TRM value | Anchor · Visible or audible trembling |
|---|
| 0 | No discernible trembling in an adequate window |
| 1 | Trace intermittent trembling |
| 2 | Mild recurring tremble |
| 3 | Clear local tremble |
| 4 | Strong tremble in one channel or several regions |
| 5 | Pronounced tremble disrupts action or voice |
| 6 | Trembling dominates the observed performance |
Visible or audible trembling · Observation notes
What to look for: Name the channel and region; separate camera shake, vibrato and recording artifacts.
Do not confuse with: No causal diagnosis. Fear, effort, cold, imitation and other causes can produce similar appearances.
PHY-REC
Residual disturbance after a marked event
How strongly an observed disturbance persists after its initiating event has ended.
Evidence needed: Usable audio or visual evidence spanning enough time to observe recovery.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visual_with_recovery_window
| PHY-REC value | Anchor · Residual disturbance after a marked event |
|---|
| 0 | Immediate return to the established baseline |
| 1 | Brief minor residue |
| 2 | Short clear residue |
| 3 | Partial recovery with moderate residue |
| 4 | Persistent substantial disturbance |
| 5 | Little recovery during an adequate follow-up window |
| 6 | No recovery or continued escalation across the follow-up window |
Residual disturbance after a marked event · Observation notes
What to look for: Store event end, follow-up end and any recovery time; censored observation windows remain explicit.
Do not confuse with: Not comparable across different follow-up lengths without reporting them. A new stimulus starts a new event.
Audible performance
VOC-FOR
Vocal projection and expressive force
Perceived force of vocal delivery relative to the recording and the speaker’s local baseline.
Evidence needed: Usable audio of the person’s performance.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio
| VOC-FOR value | Anchor · Vocal projection and expressive force |
|---|
| 0 | Barely projected murmur or fragile near-silence |
| 1 | Very soft intimate delivery |
| 2 | Soft but clearly voiced delivery |
| 3 | Ordinary conversational projection |
| 4 | Firm projected delivery |
| 5 | Sustained raised voice or emphatic calling |
| 6 | Full-force shouting or screaming |
Vocal projection and expressive force · Observation notes
What to look for: Listen for phonation, attack and projected effort; record loudness separately when calibrated.
Do not confuse with: A quiet microphone is not a quiet performance. Anger can be whispered; sadness can be loudly projected.
VOC-ART
Articulatory precision
How distinctly speech sounds and word boundaries are formed, conditional on language competence and recording quality.
Evidence needed: Usable audio of the person’s performance.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio
| VOC-ART value | Anchor · Articulatory precision |
|---|
| 0 | Most linguistic articulation is indistinct |
| 1 | Frequent severe slurring or merging |
| 2 | Many boundaries softened or reduced |
| 3 | Ordinary connected articulation |
| 4 | Clearly formed consonants and boundaries |
| 5 | Very precise sustained enunciation |
| 6 | Deliberately over-articulated or hyper-distinct delivery |
Articulatory precision · Observation notes
What to look for: Rate the delivery, not accent conformity; use native or competent listeners.
Do not confuse with: Intelligibility also depends on noise and listener language. Precision is not intelligence or quality.
VOC-RNG
Local pitch excursion
Breadth of pitch movement within the utterance relative to that voice’s usable range.
Evidence needed: Usable audio of the person’s performance.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio
| VOC-RNG value | Anchor · Local pitch excursion |
|---|
| 0 | Essentially one sustained pitch level |
| 1 | Very narrow excursion |
| 2 | Limited excursion |
| 3 | Ordinary conversational excursion |
| 4 | Broad changes |
| 5 | Very broad repeated changes |
| 6 | Extreme sweeps across the locally available range |
Local pitch excursion · Observation notes
What to look for: Preserve voiced-frame coverage; supplement with calibrated semitone range where possible.
Do not confuse with: Not absolute pitch or perceived age; unvoiced whisper is N/A (not applicable or not assessable here) for fundamental-frequency range.
VOC-FLW
Continuity of speech flow
Continuity of spoken phrasing through pauses, restarts and interruptions.
Evidence needed: Usable audio of the person’s performance.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio
| VOC-FLW value | Anchor · Continuity of speech flow |
|---|
| 0 | Almost no sustained phrase; repeated fragmentation |
| 1 | Very broken phrasing |
| 2 | Frequent breaks |
| 3 | Ordinary conversational flow with some breaks |
| 4 | Mostly continuous phrasing |
| 5 | Strongly sustained flow with few interruptions |
| 6 | Almost uninterrupted stream through the unit |
Continuity of speech flow · Observation notes
What to look for: Separate planned pauses, retrieval, breath gaps, partner interruptions and editing.
Do not confuse with: Continuous flow need not be spontaneous or comprehensible. A deliberate dramatic pause is not a defect.
VOC-RGH
Audible roughness
Perceived irregular, grainy or raspy quality of phonation.
Evidence needed: Usable audio of the person’s performance.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio
| VOC-RGH value | Anchor · Audible roughness |
|---|
| 0 | Very smooth, clear phonation |
| 1 | Trace roughness |
| 2 | Mild recurrent roughness |
| 3 | Moderate grain |
| 4 | Clearly rough or raspy |
| 5 | Strong persistent rasp or irregularity |
| 6 | Extreme roughness dominates the voice |
Audible roughness · Observation notes
What to look for: Time-local grain, creak and rasp; distinguish compression, clipping and background noise.
Do not confuse with: Do not diagnose vocal-fold state or treat roughness as poor acting. Keep breathiness separate.
VOC-BRE
Audible breathiness
Prominence of airflow noise mixed with the vocal signal.
Evidence needed: Usable audio of the person’s performance.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio
| VOC-BRE value | Anchor · Audible breathiness |
|---|
| 0 | No discernible breathy component |
| 1 | Trace air in a few phrases |
| 2 | Mild recurring airy quality |
| 3 | Moderate breathiness |
| 4 | Strong airy component |
| 5 | Breath noise dominates much of the voiced delivery |
| 6 | Predominantly breathy or whispered phonation |
Audible breathiness · Observation notes
What to look for: Separate whisper type, microphone proximity, inhalations and continuous airy phonation.
Do not confuse with: Not a measure of intimacy or low arousal. Some whispering is tense and threatening.
VOC-PAC
Speech pace
Perceived rate of linguistic delivery, with measured syllable or character rate stored separately.
Evidence needed: Usable audio together with access to the words spoken.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_with_transcript
| VOC-PAC value | Anchor · Speech pace |
|---|
| 0 | Extremely slow, widely separated speech |
| 1 | Very slow delivery |
| 2 | Somewhat slow delivery |
| 3 | Ordinary pace for language and situation |
| 4 | Noticeably fast delivery |
| 5 | Very fast, compressed delivery |
| 6 | Extremely rapid, near-rushing delivery |
Speech pace · Observation notes
What to look for: Report speaking rate with and without pauses and the counting convention.
Do not confuse with: Do not compare character rates across languages as if equivalent; pace differs from rhythmic variation.
Relational conduct
SOC-AFF
Affiliative warmth
Expressive invitation to friendly contact or shared connection with a specified other.
Evidence needed: Usable audio or visual evidence with a named interaction target.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visual_with_target
| SOC-AFF value | Anchor · Affiliative warmth |
|---|
| 0 | Actively cold or rejecting contact |
| 1 | Marked distance |
| 2 | Restrained friendliness |
| 3 | Ordinary neutral sociability |
| 4 | Clear friendly invitation |
| 5 | Sustained warmth and welcome |
| 6 | Intense, unmistakable affiliative invitation |
Affiliative warmth · Observation notes
What to look for: Address terms, timing, voice, smile, orientation and response to the other.
Do not confuse with: Warm acoustic timbre is not relational warmth. Affiliative conduct does not prove genuine affection.
SOC-VUL
Displayed emotional exposure
How openly the person allows consequential need, uncertainty, hurt or dependence to be apparent to an audience.
Evidence needed: Usable audio or visual evidence with the required contextual information.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visual_with_context
| SOC-VUL value | Anchor · Displayed emotional exposure |
|---|
| 0 | No exposure offered; tightly protected presentation |
| 1 | Trace guarded admission |
| 2 | Limited, qualified exposure |
| 3 | Moderate disclosure with boundaries |
| 4 | Clear personal exposure |
| 5 | Sustained openness despite social stakes |
| 6 | Profound, unguarded exposure at high stakes |
Displayed emotional exposure · Observation notes
What to look for: Specific admissions, requests, visible restraint and acceptance of being seen; record evidence and audience.
Do not confuse with: Not synonymous with sadness, a soft voice, helplessness or a trait. An angry demand can be vulnerable.
SOC-HOS
Interpersonal hostility
Directed antagonism toward a particular other in the observable interaction.
Evidence needed: Usable audio or visual evidence with a named interaction target.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visual_with_target
| SOC-HOS value | Anchor · Interpersonal hostility |
|---|
| 0 | Actively conciliatory or protective |
| 1 | Non-antagonistic and accommodating |
| 2 | Little antagonism |
| 3 | Mixed or equivocal adversarial conduct |
| 4 | Clear antagonism |
| 5 | Sustained strong hostility |
| 6 | Overwhelming directed threat, rejection or attack |
Interpersonal hostility · Observation notes
What to look for: Targeted words, gestures, escalation and response; distinguish a shared angry reaction to an external event.
Do not confuse with: Loudness and anger alone do not establish hostility toward the partner.
SOC-COO
Cooperative contribution
Extent to which the person’s actions support the established joint task.
Evidence needed: Observable evidence of an interaction, including the relevant partner or response.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: interaction_evidence
| SOC-COO value | Anchor · Cooperative contribution |
|---|
| 0 | Repeatedly obstructs or defeats the joint task |
| 1 | Mostly obstructive |
| 2 | Occasionally helps but often withholds |
| 3 | Ordinary shared contribution |
| 4 | Reliably supports the joint task |
| 5 | Actively anticipates and enables the other’s contribution |
| 6 | Sustained exceptional coordination and support through difficulty |
Cooperative contribution · Observation notes
What to look for: Identify whose joint task this is and whether participants have agreed to it.
Do not confuse with: Refusing an imposed demand is not automatically low cooperation in the person’s own task frame.
SOC-BND
Response to expressed boundaries
How the person responds to a clearly expressed limit, refusal or request for distance.
Evidence needed: The boundary-setting event can be identified in the evidence.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: boundary_event_available
| SOC-BND value | Anchor · Response to expressed boundaries |
|---|
| 0 | Overtly violates the stated limit repeatedly |
| 1 | Largely ignores the limit |
| 2 | Only partial or reluctant adjustment |
| 3 | Acknowledges and makes ordinary adjustment |
| 4 | Promptly respects the expressed limit |
| 5 | Checks understanding and actively protects the limit |
| 6 | Consistently anticipates relevant limits and repairs any accidental crossing |
Response to expressed boundaries · Observation notes
What to look for: Quote or describe the boundary and ensuing action; retain ambiguous or negotiated cases.
Do not confuse with: No boundary event means N/A (not applicable or not assessable here), not a default high score. This is contextual conduct, not a global moral verdict.
SOC-REP
Interaction repair
Effectiveness of observable attempts to restore shared understanding after a disruption.
Evidence needed: The interactional rupture and the subsequent response are both available.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: rupture_and_response_available
| SOC-REP value | Anchor · Interaction repair |
|---|
| 0 | No repair despite clear opportunity; disruption worsens |
| 1 | Attempt dismisses or compounds disruption |
| 2 | Partial repair misses the central issue |
| 3 | Basic repair restores some understanding |
| 4 | Clear repair addresses the relevant problem |
| 5 | Responsive repair restores coordination and checks uptake |
| 6 | Highly adaptive repair integrates feedback and sustains restored coordination |
Interaction repair · Observation notes
What to look for: Mark rupture, repair attempt, partner response and outcome.
Do not confuse with: Do not rate success if the partner or outcome is unavailable. A solo apology shows an attempt, not completed repair.
SOC-CAR
Responsive care
How specifically the response attends to another person’s expressed need or difficulty.
Evidence needed: The other person’s relevant need and the response to it are available.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: other_person_need_and_response_available
| SOC-CAR value | Anchor · Responsive care |
|---|
| 0 | Dismisses or exploits the expressed need |
| 1 | Mostly ignores it |
| 2 | Generic acknowledgement with little adaptation |
| 3 | Reasonable situation-specific acknowledgement |
| 4 | Clearly adapted support |
| 5 | Sustained attentive support adjusted to feedback |
| 6 | Highly specific, flexible support that preserves the other’s agency |
Responsive care · Observation notes
What to look for: Need, response, timing and feedback; separate affectionate manner from practical responsiveness.
Do not confuse with: Not mind-reading or proof of empathy as an enduring trait. No visible or reported need means N/A (not applicable or not assessable here).
Reasoning made observable
COG-CER
Expressed certainty
How firmly the person presents a specific belief, claim or chosen course of action.
Evidence needed: Usable audio or visual evidence and the specific proposition being expressed.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: audio_or_visual_with_proposition
| COG-CER value | Anchor · Expressed certainty |
|---|
| 0 | Explicitly unable to commit to a view |
| 1 | Strong doubt |
| 2 | Tentative position |
| 3 | Moderately committed position |
| 4 | Clear confidence |
| 5 | Strong unqualified confidence |
| 6 | Absolute certainty with no expressed alternative |
Expressed certainty · Observation notes
What to look for: Qualifiers, checking, assertions and enacted decisions; identify the proposition.
Do not confuse with: Confidence is not correctness, knowledge or intelligence; acting may intentionally project false certainty.
COG-ORG
Organisation of expressed reasoning
Legibility of relationships among the reasons or steps actually expressed in the unit.
Evidence needed: The meaning of the relevant speech or communication is accessible to the rater.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: semantic_access
| COG-ORG value | Anchor · Organisation of expressed reasoning |
|---|
| 0 | No discernible relationship among expressed steps |
| 1 | Major disconnected or contradictory steps |
| 2 | Several connections missing |
| 3 | Ordinary understandable sequence |
| 4 | Clear linked reasoning |
| 5 | Very clear structure with relevant distinctions |
| 6 | Exceptionally explicit structure and well-integrated contingencies |
Organisation of expressed reasoning · Observation notes
What to look for: Record premise, inference, revision and conclusion if present; use a competent language rater.
Do not confuse with: Only applies when reasoning is expressed. Poetry, crying or a brief exclamation is N/A (not applicable or not assessable here), not low intellect.
COG-REV
Updating after new evidence
Observed revision of a stated understanding when relevant information becomes available.
Evidence needed: Both the new information and the person’s response are available.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: new_information_and_response_available
| COG-REV value | Anchor · Updating after new evidence |
|---|
| 0 | Rejects clear new information without engagement |
| 1 | Acknowledges but never incorporates it |
| 2 | Makes only peripheral changes |
| 3 | Reasonable local update |
| 4 | Clear update changes the working interpretation |
| 5 | Integrates several implications and checks consequences |
| 6 | Flexible, coherent reorganisation with explicit uncertainty where warranted |
Updating after new evidence · Observation notes
What to look for: State old view, new information, response and resulting view.
Do not confuse with: A change of tactic is not necessarily a change of belief. If the evidence is ambiguous, document competing readings.
COG-MET
Expressed monitoring of one’s own understanding
How visibly the person checks the limits, errors or uncertainty of their own current understanding.
Evidence needed: The relevant meaning or task behaviour is observable.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: semantic_or_task_evidence
| COG-MET value | Anchor · Expressed monitoring of one’s own understanding |
|---|
| 0 | No checking despite a clear task opportunity |
| 1 | Minimal token checking |
| 2 | Occasional superficial checking |
| 3 | Ordinary acknowledgement of limits and corrections |
| 4 | Specific checks and corrections |
| 5 | Frequent, relevant monitoring with calibrated confidence |
| 6 | Systematic, situation-sensitive checking without losing the task |
Expressed monitoring of one’s own understanding · Observation notes
What to look for: Self-correction, “I may be missing…”, testing an assumption and checking consequences.
Do not confuse with: Fluency, verbal hedging or nervous repetition alone are not metacognitive skill. Record only demonstrated monitoring.
Cross-channel relationships
COH-FB
Face–body expressive correspondence
Degree to which face and body support a compatible expressed reading in the same time interval.
Evidence needed: Both channels named in the scale are available for comparison.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: both_named_channels_available
| COH-FB value | Anchor · Face–body expressive correspondence |
|---|
| 0 | Strong, sustained contradiction |
| 1 | Mostly contradictory |
| 2 | Several clear divergences |
| 3 | Mixed correspondence and divergence |
| 4 | Mostly compatible with local differences |
| 5 | Strong correspondence with subtle differences |
| 6 | Consistently close correspondence across the relevant expressive changes |
Face–body expressive correspondence · Observation notes
What to look for: Record exact channel evidence, temporal lag and the dimension compared; preserve deliberate counterpoint.
Do not confuse with: Low correspondence may be excellent acting: concealment, irony or divided attention. Editing, dubbing and asynchronous capture must be checked first.
COH-FV
Face–voice expressive correspondence
Degree to which face and voice support a compatible expressed reading in the same time interval.
Evidence needed: Both channels named in the scale are available for comparison.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: both_named_channels_available
| COH-FV value | Anchor · Face–voice expressive correspondence |
|---|
| 0 | Strong, sustained contradiction |
| 1 | Mostly contradictory |
| 2 | Several clear divergences |
| 3 | Mixed correspondence and divergence |
| 4 | Mostly compatible with local differences |
| 5 | Strong correspondence with subtle differences |
| 6 | Consistently close correspondence across the relevant expressive changes |
Face–voice expressive correspondence · Observation notes
What to look for: Record exact channel evidence, temporal lag and the dimension compared; preserve deliberate counterpoint.
Do not confuse with: Low correspondence may be excellent acting: concealment, irony or divided attention. Editing, dubbing and asynchronous capture must be checked first.
COH-BV
Body–voice expressive correspondence
Degree to which body and voice support a compatible expressed reading in the same time interval.
Evidence needed: Both channels named in the scale are available for comparison.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: both_named_channels_available
| COH-BV value | Anchor · Body–voice expressive correspondence |
|---|
| 0 | Strong, sustained contradiction |
| 1 | Mostly contradictory |
| 2 | Several clear divergences |
| 3 | Mixed correspondence and divergence |
| 4 | Mostly compatible with local differences |
| 5 | Strong correspondence with subtle differences |
| 6 | Consistently close correspondence across the relevant expressive changes |
Body–voice expressive correspondence · Observation notes
What to look for: Record exact channel evidence, temporal lag and the dimension compared; preserve deliberate counterpoint.
Do not confuse with: Low correspondence may be excellent acting: concealment, irony or divided attention. Editing, dubbing and asynchronous capture must be checked first.
COH-WD
Words–delivery expressive correspondence
Degree to which literal words and expressive delivery support a compatible expressed reading in the same time interval.
Evidence needed: Both channels named in the scale are available for comparison.
Ordered categories, 0–6 · Evidence code: both_named_channels_available
| COH-WD value | Anchor · Words–delivery expressive correspondence |
|---|
| 0 | Strong, sustained contradiction |
| 1 | Mostly contradictory |
| 2 | Several clear divergences |
| 3 | Mixed correspondence and divergence |
| 4 | Mostly compatible with local differences |
| 5 | Strong correspondence with subtle differences |
| 6 | Consistently close correspondence across the relevant expressive changes |
Words–delivery expressive correspondence · Observation notes
What to look for: Record exact channel evidence, temporal lag and the dimension compared; preserve deliberate counterpoint.
Do not confuse with: Low correspondence may be excellent acting: concealment, irony or divided attention. Editing, dubbing and asynchronous capture must be checked first.
Appendix B / Observer layer
Eight separate impression scales
Name the viewer, the available audio or visual channels, access to the scene and the reason for the impression. These judgements may vary between viewers even when the observable evidence is the same.
IMP-ENG
Engagement
How strongly this performance holds this viewer’s attention.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-BEL
Believability in the stated scene
How plausible the performed responses feel within the stated fictional or real context.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-LEG
Legibility of the intended action
How clearly the viewer can follow what this person is trying to do, conditional on access to the scene.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-WRM
Perceived warmth
How interpersonally welcoming this person seems to this viewer in this clip.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-THR
Perceived threat
How threatening the performance feels to this viewer; not a prediction of dangerousness.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-VUL
Perceived vulnerability
How exposed or emotionally reachable the person seems to this viewer.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-CMP
Perceived competence
How capable the person appears in the specific depicted task; not an assessment of general ability.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.
IMP-ENJ
Viewing or listening enjoyment
How rewarding this viewer finds attending to this performance; distress and artistic value may coexist.
Anchors: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Very little; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Clearly; 5 = Very strongly; 6 = Extremely
Record rater access, language competence, cultural familiarity, reason and confidence.