TRACE™
Behavioral Assessment
A forced-choice instrument for measuring how a person naturally thinks and operates — not what they value or aspire to. This manual explains the architecture, scoring, and how to deliver a debrief that produces real insight.
What the Assessment Is
TRACE™ is a forced-choice behavioral assessment that measures how a person naturally thinks and operates — not what they value or aspire to. Every question asks the respondent to choose between two or three statements that describe natural behavioral tendencies. There are no right or wrong answers. The goal is a profile of authentic behavioral patterns, not a personality test.
The assessment is level-specific. A person is assigned to one of four levels before taking it, and the question set they receive is tailored to the behavioral expectations and vocabulary of that level.
The Four Levels
Each level has its own trait architecture: six Core Traits that drive the Predictive Index more heavily, and four Enabling Traits that amplify or constrain the core. Click a level to explore its trait map; click any trait to reveal what it measures.
How Questions Work
TRACE uses three question formats. Two produce trait signal; one is purely diagnostic. Together they create the behavioral pattern that becomes the profile.
Pair Questions
Two statements; respondent selects the one that most reflects how they naturally think and behave. There is a correct answer for each person — the one that honestly represents them. They are not asked which is better or which they aspire to.
Triad Questions
Three statements; respondent selects both the most and least representative. The middle option is implied. These apply more differentiation and are particularly useful for separating closely related traits.
Reliability Mirror Questions
8 questions in the assessment look similar to questions the respondent already answered but are worded differently. The respondent doesn't know these are repeats. The system compares their answers. Consistent answers indicate genuine, stable self-knowledge. Inconsistent answers can indicate rushing, random clicking, or self-awareness gaps that make results less predictive.
How Scores Are Produced
The scoring pipeline has four sequential steps. Raw responses become facet points, facet points become normalized 1–9 scores, facets average into traits, and traits feed the Predictive Index.
Raw Points
Responses add points to specific facets — the sub-components of each trait.
Facet Normalization
Each facet is scaled to a 1–9 score relative to the person's own response pattern.
Trait Derivation
Each trait = average of its two facets, rounded and clamped to the 1–9 scale.
Interpretation
Scores are read as a shape — the combination matters more than any single number.
Point Accumulation
| Response Type | Points | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pair — Chosen | +2 | Contributes to the facet associated with the selected statement. |
| Pair — Unchosen | 0 | Noted as "seen" but not rewarded. |
| Triad — Most | +3 | Strongest positive signal the instrument collects. |
| Triad — Middle | +1 | Implied middle (not explicitly selected). |
| Triad — Least | −1 | Only penalty in the system; creates meaningful separation. |
Facet Normalization Formula
Facet Score = ((raw − min) ÷ range) × 8 + 1
// Every trait is built from exactly two facets
Trait Score = average(Facet A, Facet B)
What a 1–9 Score Means
| Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 8 – 9 | Dominant behavioral pattern — a defining characteristic. High performance impact when well-directed; highest derailer risk when overused. |
| 6 – 7 | Strong expression — consistently present; reliable differentiator in the profile. |
| 4 – 5 | Moderate expression — situationally present; not a strong identifier in either direction. |
| 2 – 3 | Lower expression — this behavior is not a natural default. May be developed, but isn't instinctive. |
| 1 | Minimal expression — the person consistently chose other behaviors over this one throughout the assessment. |
The Predictive Index
The Predictive Index (PI) is a 0–100 score that represents overall behavioral readiness for the current role level. It answers the question: "How well does this behavioral profile match what the role demands?"
It is not an IQ score, a performance rating, or a ceiling. It reflects the current strength and distribution of the behavioral traits that predict success at this level. The formula weights Core Traits at 2× the influence of Enabling Traits — core traits are the fundamental behavioral demands; enabling traits amplify the core but can't compensate for a weak core.
Raw PI = (Core Avg × 2 + Enabling Avg) ÷ 3
// Scale Raw PI (1–9) into a 0–100 Predictive Index
Predictive Index = ((Raw PI − 1) ÷ 8) × 100
Build a Profile
Drag the sliders to set each trait's 1–9 score. The PI updates live.
Predictive Index
PI Bands
| Score | Label | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| 65 – 100 | High Behavioral Readiness | Strong behavioral foundation across both core and enabling traits. The profile strongly supports role performance. |
| 50 – 64 | Strong Behavioral Profile | Solid core with some enabling variation. Well-positioned for the demands of the role. |
| 35 – 49 | Developing Profile | Core traits are present but unevenly expressed. Enabling traits may be offsetting or underdeveloped. Active development will close the gap. |
| 0 – 34 | Early-Stage Profile | Significant gaps in core behavioral expression relative to role demands. Important to distinguish between "wrong role" and "earlier career stage." |
Results Sections Explained
The report has ten sections. Each translates the underlying trait profile into a different lens. Click any section to explore what it contains and how to use it.
Shows whether the person's answers were consistent across the 8 mirror questions. Displayed as High, Moderate, or Low — no percentage is shown to the participant.
High: Answers were stable across differently-worded versions of similar questions. Results are trustworthy.
Moderate: Minor inconsistency. Results are valid but should be interpreted with slight awareness that some self-perception may be contextually variable.
Low: Significant inconsistency. Could indicate rushing, random responding, or genuine blind spots. Use results as a starting point for conversation, not as definitive findings.
The system also flags unusually fast average response time, or strong positional bias (choosing A or B overwhelmingly regardless of content).
All 10 traits scored 1–9. This is the foundation of the entire report. Everything else — competencies, archetypes, derailers, tensions — is derived from these scores.
Read the trait profile as a shape, not a set of individual grades. The combination matters more than any single score. A high-Entrepreneurial Velocity + low-Navigating Complexity profile has very different implications than high-Navigating Complexity + low-Entrepreneurial Velocity, even if both have similar PIs.
Eight composite scores derived by weighting combinations of trait scores. Competencies translate the trait profile into behavioral capabilities that are recognizable in a job description or performance framework.
A competency score of 7+ is a reliable strength. A score of 3 or below is a genuine gap that likely shows up in performance data.
The best-fitting of 8 archetypes for the respondent's level, matched by looking for the highest scores across the two defining traits of each archetype. The archetype gives a human narrative summary of the profile — what it looks like in action, what it produces at its best, and where it tends to break down.
Use the archetype as a conversation opener, not a box. Most people find it resonant. When someone says "that's not quite me," that reaction itself is useful data.
Every profile has behavioral tensions — traits that are both high and naturally in conflict with each other. These aren't problems; they're the friction points where the person does their most interesting leadership work and where they're most at risk of getting stuck.
Each tension pair includes: what the tension is, what happens when each side locks in (the overuse failure mode), and a coaching prompt for navigating it.
For any trait scoring 7 or higher, the report flags the overuse failure mode. High scores are strengths — but every strength has a shadow side that activates under stress, at speed, or when unchecked by feedback.
Derailers are among the most valuable parts of the report for development conversations. They name specific, observable failure modes with enough precision that people can recognize them in their own experience.
Derived from the 15 forced-choice motivation pairs embedded throughout the assessment. Shows the person's relative ranking of 10 motivation drivers:
Autonomy · Recognition · Challenge · Purpose · Advancement · Collaboration · Mastery · Impact · Variety · Stability
The profile ranks drivers by wins (each driver competed head-to-head against others 3 times). A driver with 3 wins is a Primary Driver. The system then cross-references motivation drivers against the behavioral profile — where high motivation is backed by supporting behavioral traits, there's alignment; where it isn't, there's a potential friction zone.
Motivation–Behavior Alignment is particularly useful for retention and role-fit conversations. Someone highly motivated by autonomy but with a behavioral profile that suggests dependence on external structure will experience chronic frustration in roles that require self-direction.
A prose synthesis of the full profile — written specifically for the respondent. It integrates the trait pattern, archetype, key tensions, and motivation profile into a coherent behavioral story. This is often the section people find most immediately meaningful and use as a reference document.
Identifies the 2–3 behavioral areas where focused development would have the highest leverage, given the current profile and role demands. Also identifies strengths to protect — behaviors that are working that development agendas sometimes inadvertently sand down.
Practical guidance for whoever works with this person on how to get the best from the profile. Covers communication style, what environments engage this person, what creates friction, how to give feedback, and how to challenge without triggering defensiveness.
If the person has taken the assessment more than once, this tab shows score movement across administrations. Sustained shifts of 2+ points in a trait across two assessments indicate real behavioral development. Small fluctuations (1 point) are noise.
How to Deliver a Debrief
A well-run debrief is a structured conversation, not a PowerPoint walkthrough. The goal is to help the person develop genuine insight about their behavioral pattern — not to read them a document.
The Arc of the Conversation
Before the Debrief
Read the full report before the conversation. Don't come in cold. Know the 2–3 highest and lowest trait scores, which archetype came up and whether you find it compelling, the active tension pairs, any derailer flags, and any motivation friction zones. Form a hypothesis: "Based on this profile, I expect this person leads with X, struggles with Y in context Z, and probably has a pattern around…" The debrief will either confirm or complicate your hypothesis — both are useful.
Opening the Conversation
Don't start by explaining the assessment. Start by asking:
This gives you a baseline against which to test the profile, and creates the right conversational posture — the person is doing the work, not receiving a verdict.
Introducing the Profile
Start with the Predictive Index and Archetype because they're the most accessible entry points:
Let them react. Their reaction — whether agreement, pushback, or nuance — tells you a lot about self-awareness and will shape the rest of the conversation.
Walking the Trait Profile
Don't read every score. Work the shape. Lead with the highest 2–3 traits — "What's very clear in this profile is [trait] and [trait]. Do you recognize those as real? When do you see them show up?" Introduce the lowest 2–3 traits carefully; don't frame low scores as deficits, frame them as choices: "One thing the profile shows is that [trait] isn't a natural default for you — not absent, but not where you lead from." The best signal that the profile is valid is when the person starts adding specific examples you didn't prompt.
The Tension Pairs Conversation
Often the most generative part of the debrief. Introduce tensions as productive friction, not contradictions:
The Derailer Conversation
Requires the most care. Frame derailers as the shadow side of a genuine strength:
If you have corroborating performance data or feedback, bring it now — not as accusation, but as pattern recognition.
The Motivation Alignment Conversation
If there are friction zones (high motivation not backed by supporting behaviors):
This is particularly powerful for retention conversations. People rarely leave because of pay or title. They leave because their motivational fuel and their behavioral reality are in chronic friction.
Closing the Debrief
End with two questions, not a summary:
2. "If you were going to do one thing differently based on what we talked about today, what would it be?"
The first surfaces what actually landed — which is rarely what you expected. The second converts insight into intention. Without it, even excellent debriefs produce beautiful awareness that never changes anything.
What to Avoid
Don't diagnose
You're a guide through the data, not an authority on who this person is.
Don't rush low scores
A 2 on a trait is not an emergency. Spend more time on the 8s and 9s — that's where the leverage and the risk both live.
Don't skip the tensions
The paradox section is the most analytically rich part of the report. It's also the most likely to be skipped when time is short. Don't skip it.
Don't use jargon
"Your Cognitive Empathy facet score shows…" is not useful language. Translate: "What comes through strongly is how much you track what's happening for people around you."
Don't treat the report as final
The report is a starting point. The person in front of you is always more complex than the instrument. When something doesn't fit, say so — and explore why.
For Development Planning After the Debrief
Development that isn't anchored in a specific, lived situation rarely sticks. The profile gives you the map. The person's answer to that question tells you where to start walking.