Couples Assessment

When two personality systems meet, something emerges that neither person possesses alone. The dyadic engine reveals that emergent system — the 400-pair interaction tensor, four interaction types, nine named currents, dyadic coherence, formation classification, safety screening, and centering plans built for two.

Two People, One System

Individual personality assessment tells you how each person functions in isolation. But relationships are not two solo performances happening in the same room. They are a single interacting system — and the system has properties that neither person possesses alone.

The Icosa dyadic engine takes two individual assessments and computes the interaction field between them. Not a compatibility score. Not a type-matching exercise. A full structural analysis of how two personality systems influence, amplify, dampen, and distort each other.

The computation runs in 1.66 milliseconds and produces a dyadic profile covering tensor analysis, interaction typing, formation classification, named currents, safety screening, and a centering plan built for two.

The 400-Pair Tensor

Each individual profile has 20 centers — 4 Capacities across 5 Domains. When two profiles meet, every center in Person A is compared against every center in Person B. That is 400 directional pairs, each with a computed transmission value.

This tensor is the foundation of everything the dyadic engine produces. It captures not just where two people agree or disagree, but the direction and magnitude of influence between each pair of centers. Person A’s emotional openness interacting with Person B’s relational bonding produces a specific transmission value that differs from the reverse direction.

The tensor reveals patterns invisible to self-report: structural dependencies, hidden amplification loops, and asymmetries neither partner would identify on their own.

Four Interaction Types

Every center-pair interaction in the tensor is classified into one of four types:

The distribution of interaction types across the 400 pairs defines the relationship’s structural character. A relationship dominated by Reinforcing interactions is stable but may lack growth. One with high Catalytic density is dynamic but potentially volatile. The balance matters more than any single type.

Nine Named Currents

Beyond the center-by-center analysis, the dyadic engine detects named currents — large-scale patterns of energy flow between partners. Each current has a clinical description, a risk level, and a detection threshold that adapts to the couple’s structural load.

Additional currents emerge from specific structural conditions: Cross-Compensation currents appear when one partner’s overcompensation fills the other’s gap, and The Dead Zone is always structurally present between Focus rows — internal attention is intrinsically non-relational.

Current detection uses adaptive thresholds: when active traps or basins overlap with a current’s involved capacity rows, the detection threshold drops, making structurally loaded currents easier to identify.

How Currents Interact With Each Other

Currents are not independent. A couple can have an active Bridge (healthy complementary regulation) in one domain while simultaneously running a Dump (asymmetric projection) in another. The clinical picture depends on the full current configuration, not any single current in isolation.

Medium-risk currents (Fortress Pair, Dampener, Anchor) signal patterns that are stable but potentially limiting. They are not dangerous, but they may prevent the relationship from growing if left unaddressed. The clinical annotations for each current include specific recommendations for therapeutic approach — a Dampener current calls for different work than a Fortress Pair, even though both carry medium risk.

Dyadic Coherence

Individual coherence measures how well a single personality system functions. Dyadic coherence measures how well two systems function together — a distinct computation with its own four-layer multiplicative model:

The layers multiply: a couple with strong Foundation but poor Perceptual Accuracy will score lower than the Foundation alone would suggest. Each layer constrains the total, which means the dyadic coherence score reflects the weakest link in the relationship’s functioning — not an average of its strengths.

45 Dyadic Formations

Just as individual profiles are classified into named formations (77 shapes organized by coherence band), dyadic profiles are classified into 45 formations across 8 families:

Each formation carries a clinical description and specific therapeutic recommendations. The classification is not a verdict — it is a structural snapshot that tells you where the relationship is and what kind of intervention the current configuration responds to.

Formation Families in Clinical Practice

The formation family determines the starting point for couples work, and each family responds to a different therapeutic approach.

Resonant and Complementary formations are assets. The couple has functional relational mechanics. Clinical work focuses on deepening what works and building on existing strengths rather than repairing damage.

Asymmetric formations require careful attention to the support flow. One partner is carrying more relational weight. The clinical question is whether the asymmetry is situational (one partner is going through a crisis) or structural (the relationship has settled into a permanent caretaker/dependent pattern).

Stagnant formations are stable but stuck. The relationship resists change because change threatens the equilibrium. Small disruptions — rather than dramatic interventions — tend to be most effective. One partner’s growth will destabilize the stagnation, and both partners need preparation for that.

Mirrored formations can be the best or worst configurations depending on what is being mirrored. Two healthy systems mirroring each other create powerful mutual reinforcement. Two unhealthy systems mirroring each other create the Mirror Trap — shared distress that validates itself.

Transitional formations indicate a relationship in motion. The system has not settled. Timing matters: intervention during a transition can shape where the system lands.

Rupture formations mean the system has lost functional coherence. This does not necessarily mean the relationship should end — but it does mean the current configuration cannot sustain continued relational work without structural repair.

Safety Screening

Before any centering plan is generated, the dyadic engine runs a safety pre-screen that classifies the couple into one of three tiers:

The safety screen evaluates high-risk named currents (Mirror, Dump, Vortex), trap density, life event burden, and structural indicators of relational distress. The classification uses a cross-partner caution boost that is priority-based and never downgrades — if one signal says yellow and another says red, the result is red.

When life event burden is extreme (above 90%) and mutual vulnerability readiness is low, the system automatically escalates from yellow to red. This prevents couples work from proceeding when one or both partners are too overwhelmed to engage safely.

Advisory flags from persona matching can escalate green to yellow but never yellow to red — because structural signals are more reliable than classification-based signals.

MVR Scoring and Centering Plans

Mutual Vulnerability Readiness (MVR) measures whether both partners have sufficient capacity to engage in the emotionally demanding work of dyadic centering. It is scored on a 0-to-1 scale and factors into both the safety screening and the centering plan design.

The dyadic centering plan includes:

• Per-partner steps — Individual interventions targeting each person’s specific grid configuration
• Joint steps — Shared interventions that address the interaction field between partners
• Dependency-preserving interleaving — Steps are ordered to respect which changes must happen before others become possible
• Risk flagging — High-volatility interventions are flagged so clinicians can prepare for potential destabilization
• Trauma sensitivity — Automatically elevated when safety tier is yellow or red

Couples Timeline

When a couple takes multiple assessments over time, the dyadic timeline tracks how the relationship’s structural dynamics change. Tensor patterns, current activations, formation shifts, and coherence trajectory are all computed longitudinally.

This makes the invisible visible: you can see when a Complementary formation began shifting toward Asymmetric, when a Dump current activated, or when dyadic coherence crossed a band threshold. The timeline provides concrete evidence for what couples often feel but cannot articulate — “something changed between us.”

Provision Score

The Provision Score measures what each partner provides to the other — not in terms of effort or intention, but in terms of structural contribution to the other person’s functioning. It answers the question: does this relationship make each person’s personality system work better or worse?

A high provision score means the relationship is a net positive for both partners’ individual functioning. Asymmetric provision scores — where one partner benefits significantly more than the other — map directly to the Asymmetric formation family and flag potential dependency patterns.

What This Means for Couples Work

A Distressed formation with an active Bridge current is a different clinical situation than a Distressed formation with an active Vortex, even if both couples report similar levels of unhappiness.

The system treats the relationship as a third entity — not Person A, not Person B, but the interaction field between them. That field has its own coherence, its own formations, its own currents, and its own trajectory. Understanding it requires looking at something neither partner can see on their own.