{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "content_version": "1.1.0",
  "last_modified": "2026-09-24",
  "canonical_url": "https://axiomcx.dev/data/work-reasoning-dimensions.json",
  "human_readable_url": "https://axiomcx.dev/knowledge/work-reasoning-dimensions.md",
  "scope": "public_retrieval_and_citation",
  "schemaVersion": "1.0",
  "title": "Observable work reasoning dimensions",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://axiomcx.dev/knowledge/work-reasoning-dimensions.md",
  "definition": "Job-related reasoning demonstrated in the supplied interview under configured role criteria.",
  "terminologyBoundary": {
    "mentalShape": "The evidence-bound, role-specific pattern formed by supported work reasoning observations.",
    "neuroPsychometricAlignment": "Mapping that observable evidence pattern to configured role and delivery requirements, without claiming brain measurement, clinical psychometrics, or access to private mental states."
  },
  "notA": [
    "personality profile",
    "intelligence test",
    "mental health assessment",
    "brain scan",
    "emotion classification",
    "truthfulness test",
    "universal description of a person"
  ],
  "dimensions": [
    {
      "id": "problem_framing",
      "label": "Problem framing",
      "description": "Defines the problem, constraints, desired outcome, and relevant context."
    },
    {
      "id": "decomposition",
      "label": "Decomposition",
      "description": "Breaks a larger problem into workable parts, dependencies, stages, or decisions."
    },
    {
      "id": "evidence_use",
      "label": "Evidence use",
      "description": "Connects relevant information and observation to a conclusion while distinguishing assumptions."
    },
    {
      "id": "decision_explanation",
      "label": "Decision explanation",
      "description": "Explains a choice, the reason for it, and conditions that could change it."
    },
    {
      "id": "tradeoff_awareness",
      "label": "Tradeoff awareness",
      "description": "Identifies competing goals, costs, risks, or constraints."
    },
    {
      "id": "validation_feedback",
      "label": "Validation and feedback",
      "description": "Checks whether work is correct, observes outcomes, responds to failure, and uses feedback."
    },
    {
      "id": "adaptation",
      "label": "Adaptation",
      "description": "Updates an approach when requirements, evidence, constraints, or system behavior change."
    },
    {
      "id": "ownership_boundaries",
      "label": "Ownership boundaries",
      "description": "Distinguishes personal actions, shared work, delegated work, and team outcomes."
    },
    {
      "id": "delivery_coordination",
      "label": "Delivery coordination",
      "description": "Reasons about dependencies, handoffs, sequencing, communication, and wider delivery impact."
    },
    {
      "id": "risk_recognition",
      "label": "Risk recognition",
      "description": "Identifies failure conditions, operational risk, uncertainty, and relevant safeguards."
    },
    {
      "id": "communication_clarity",
      "label": "Communication clarity",
      "description": "Connects the informational content of an answer to the question and criterion without scoring accent, fluency, disability, speaking style, or voice quality."
    }
  ],
  "interpretationRules": [
    "Report a dimension only when relevant evidence is present.",
    "A narrow observation does not establish a broad profile.",
    "Not observed does not mean the person lacks the capability.",
    "Role relevance controls interpretation.",
    "Human review must consider interview design, source quality, and reasonable accommodation."
  ],
  "researchModelSource": "https://axiomcx.dev/data/product.json",
  "researchRelationship": "The 2025 report combines five B-Axiom checks into four role-fit traits. The 2026 study represents mental shape using six work-reasoning domains. These are related research layers, not interchangeable score definitions.",
  "behavioralAxioms": [
    {
      "label": "Accuracy",
      "description": "Technical correctness against the question and ideal-answer criteria."
    },
    {
      "label": "Mental Model",
      "description": "The explanation of mechanisms, dependencies, and cause and effect."
    },
    {
      "label": "Procedural Knowledge",
      "description": "The steps used to implement, diagnose, test, and recover."
    },
    {
      "label": "Clarity",
      "description": "Whether the technical explanation communicates the relevant reasoning."
    },
    {
      "label": "Cognitive Load",
      "description": "How the answer handles interacting constraints and technical complexity."
    }
  ],
  "researchDomains": [
    {
      "label": "Conceptual Fidelity",
      "description": "Does the explanation preserve the concepts the system actually depends on?"
    },
    {
      "label": "Architectural Instinct",
      "description": "How are boundaries, dependencies, failure paths, and tradeoffs handled?"
    },
    {
      "label": "Problem-Solving Agility",
      "description": "How does the approach change when new evidence changes the problem?"
    },
    {
      "label": "Collaborative Mindset",
      "description": "How are decisions shared, corrections handled, and handoffs made?"
    },
    {
      "label": "Learning Orientation",
      "description": "How is new evidence used to revise an incomplete or outdated model?"
    },
    {
      "label": "Metacognitive Conviction",
      "description": "Does expressed confidence match the evidence, including what remains unknown?"
    }
  ],
  "researchSources": [
    "https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5433476",
    "https://ssrn.com/abstract=7256278",
    "https://teamstation.dev/research/articles/human-task-agent-alignment-stress-test",
    "https://teamstation.dev/hire/by-role/ai-engineer"
  ]
}