I
Structural Fit
Which two systems met?Individual profiles, differences and potentially relevant points of contact.
P-120 · DYADIC RESEARCH LAYER
Are we together?
Dyadic Research Architecture
Not how similar you are. What happens between you.
Comparing two profiles is easy. Giving that comparison a percentage is even easier. Neither of those things is the same as measuring compatibility.
Two very different people may adapt to one another extremely well. Two similar people may struggle to discuss differences, amplify tension, or fail to recover after conflict and mismatch. The P-120 dyadic layer therefore does not reduce a relationship to one “Couple Score”. It studies several distinct levels of how a specific pair functions.
Research previewsystem in development18+
TWO INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS
First — two independent systems
Each person keeps their own P-120 profile and, where completed, their own additional research layers. Neither partner becomes the other person’s “correct half”, and no individual score becomes a rating of relationship quality.
PERSON A
Their own P-120 profile- individual coordinates
- optional research layers
- their own private data zone
Dyadic
Research
Layer
Research
Layer
PERSON B
Their own P-120 profile- individual coordinates
- optional research layers
- their own private data zone
A/B are technical roles. They do not encode sex, gender, initiative or dominance.
FOUR-LEVEL COMPATIBILITY DOCTRINE
Compatibility is not one number
II
Negotiated Fit
What do two people do with their differences?Can they notice mismatch, communicate needs, adapt, negotiate and repair contact?
III
Experienced Dynamic Fit
What does the interaction actually do to each person’s state?Does it produce mutual recovery, one-sided relief, load, co-regulation or another reproducible state pattern?
IV
Temporal Stability
Does the pattern repeat over time?A single episode should not automatically become a characteristic of the entire relationship.
KEY RULE. Structural similarity is not compatibility. Structural mismatch can coexist with good adaptation; structural similarity can coexist with poor repair and co-dysregulation.
DYADIC PROCESS
Sometimes the break occurs somewhere else than it seems
NEED
PERCEPTION
PROVISION
EXPERIENCE
EFFECT
A person may need a particular form of contact. A partner may understand that need correctly but provide something different from what was expected. Or one person may believe they delivered exactly what was needed while the other experiences the interaction in a completely different way.
Dyadic architecture is designed to locate the break: need, perception, action, experience or subsequent effect, instead of immediately applying a global label of “compatible / incompatible”.
DYNAMIC RESEARCH ENGINES
Two trajectories instead of one “couple score”
SCORE-D
What intimacy does to each person’s state
Sexual Co-Regulation & Recovery
SCORE-D studies changes in state around intimate contact and repeated interactions: stress, affect, recovery, subjective resource, interdependence and possible asymmetry of recovery.
The central question is not whether there is “energy” between two people, but how two independently measured states change over time.
mutual recoveryasymmetric recoveryunilateral benefitsynchronyrepeated event pattern
Synchrony ≠ co-regulation ≠ compatibility
Research Candidate · controlled pre-pilot architectureDESIRE-D
Desire moves through time too
Dyadic Desire & Erotic Coordination
Desire in a relationship cannot be reduced correctly to two fixed “libido levels”. DESIRE-D is being developed as two independent trajectories: one’s own desire, perception of the partner’s desire, signals, interpretation of mismatch, scenario change, and how desire moves within specific interactions.
No libido compatibility score · No desire compatibility percentage · No Couple Total
Candidate measurement architecture · in developmentPRIVACY BY DESIGN
Studying two people should not take away either person’s private space
Dyadic research is meaningful only if each person can answer independently and is not required to disclose their individual responses to the partner.
C1Individual participationEach person participates independently and controls their own responses.
C2Pseudonymous pairingLinking two participation records requires separate consent.
C3Share-safe report consentOnly mutually authorised interpretation that is safe to disclose.
C4Optional event studySeparate permission for repeated event-level research.
Partners complete the assessment separately.
One partner’s raw answers are not shown to the other.
A shared report does not expose sensitive safety data.
An optional question may be skipped and a sensitive flow may be stopped.
Shared-report consent can be withdrawn.
The interface does not tell a partner which sensitive steps the other skipped or stopped.
FUTURE RESULT ARCHITECTURE
A relationship result should not be one percentage either
The structure below is a preview of a future architecture, not an already available production report.
01 / INDIVIDUALMy state
How the interaction is associated with my own state.
02 / PARTNER-CONTEXTThis partner’s context
How my states and reactions change specifically in the context of this partner — without exposing their raw answers.
03 / DYADICMutual pattern
Which mutual patterns can be described safely, and only where the data and mutual consent are sufficient.
Future report architecture. Production interpretation is not yet authorised.
SCIENTIFIC BOUNDARY
What this page does not promise
No Couple Total.
No Compatibility %.
Similarity is not declared to be compatibility.
One event does not become a characteristic of the entire relationship.
Synchrony is not equated with co-regulation.
A research preview is not a validated production product.
SCORE-DControlled candidate/pre-pilot architecture; production score/report authority is not claimed.
DESIRE-DCandidate dyadic desire measurement architecture; a single libido/compatibility score is prohibited.
Dyadic privacyIndependent participation, pseudonymous pairing and share-safe disclosure remain mandatory boundaries.