The Evidence Base
Seventy-eight studies across fifteen synthesis papers — the complete scientific foundation for the Icosa model. From dimensional geometry to clinical application, each paper synthesizes multiple formal studies with downloadable PDFs and data.
Meta-Analysis: Aggregated Evidence Across 78 Studies of the Icosa Model
Seventy-eight studies. Approximately ten thousand simulated profiles. Fourteen research categories spanning grid geometry, clinical utility, dyadic systems, and independent validation. This meta-analysis aggregates the full body of Icosa research into a single evidence map — revealing where the model’s evidence is strongest, where its boundaries lie, and what the pattern of null findings tells us about the nature of personality structure.
Read the full meta-analysis →Core Research
The theoretical foundation — ten synthesis papers tracing the model from its 4×5 grid structure through coherence measurement, construct detection, intervention paths, and relationship dynamics.
The Architecture of the Grid: Dimensional Structure and Geometric Meaning
The Icosa maps personality across a 4×5 grid of four capacities and five domains, producing twenty distinct dimensions of human experience. This research validates that these twenty positions carry genuine, independent meaning — with 19 of 20 centers contributing unique variance that simpler models miss. The grid is not an arbitrary arrangement; it is a structurally sound architecture where position, balance, and asymmetry all carry measurable significance.
The Capacity Paradox: Why Processing Style Doesn't Predict Integration
Open, Focus, Bond, and Move describe four fundamentally different ways of engaging with life — receiving, attending, connecting, and expressing. This research demonstrates that these capacities are independent: knowing how someone opens tells you almost nothing about how they focus. The paradox is that individual capacity levels don’t predict wellbeing — what matters is how evenly each capacity expresses across the five domains.
Hot Cores and Cold Peripheries: How Center States Drive Personality Dynamics
Not all positions on the grid carry equal weight. This research identifies ‘hot cores’ — centers with high deviation from their balanced target — that disproportionately drive personality dynamics, explaining roughly a third of coherence variance. The centered-to-off-centered spectrum at each position creates a continuous landscape of personality expression, revealing which centers dominate personality dynamics and which operate in supporting roles.
Measuring Integration: The Five-Layer Coherence Formula and Its Clinical Bands
Coherence measures how well your twenty dimensions work together as an integrated system — and it is the Icosa’s most consequential metric. This research validates a five-layer formula that captures 66% of the variance in personality integration, with gateway flow alone accounting for nearly half. The resulting five-band system separates clinically meaningful groups and provides a single, trackable measure of growth over time.
Traps, Basins, and Gateways: The Three Layers of Structural Dysfunction
Beneath the surface of every personality profile lie structural features that shape lived experience: traps (self-reinforcing feedback loops), basins (system-level attractors pulling toward dysfunction), and gateways (high-leverage points for intervention). This research confirms these three layers are empirically distinct, each measuring a different aspect of personality dynamics. Together they form a diagnostic language connecting geometric structure to the patterns people actually feel.
Profile Shapes: How 77 Formations Capture Personality Dynamics
When you step back from individual scores, personality profiles reveal recognizable geometric shapes — recurring patterns called formations. This research catalogs 77 distinct formations across four structural dimensions, demonstrating that these shapes emerge naturally from grid geometry rather than arbitrary labeling. Safety screening integrated into formation detection links structural pattern directly to clinical significance.
Centering Paths: Computed Interventions and the Problem of Oscillation
Knowing where someone is matters less than knowing where they can move. This research validates that computed centering paths — algorithmically generated sequences of gateway activations — measurably improve coherence when followed in the recommended order. Oscillation emerges as the single strongest predictor of coherence trajectory, making stabilization the critical first step in any growth plan.
Two Personalities, One Relationship: Structural Geometry of Dyadic Interaction
When two people form a relationship, their combined personality geometry creates something structurally new — not just two profiles side by side. This research shows that cross-partner coherence alignment explains 40% of dyadic coherence, while four interaction types capture the qualitative character of how personalities intermesh. The relationship itself has a structural signature that cannot be reduced to either partner alone.
Selective Clinical Utility: Where the Model Adds Value and Where It Doesn't
This research tests whether a geometric personality model can inform clinical practice, and finds selective but genuine utility — strongest for tracking therapeutic progress, monitoring treatment response, and stratifying risk. Pattern detection provides clinicians with a structural vocabulary that complements traditional diagnostic categories, while the model is transparent about where its evidence is strongest and where clinical judgment must lead.
Under Pressure: Measurement Stability, Edge Cases, and Known Boundaries
A personality model is only useful if it holds up under real-world conditions — varied demographics, imperfect measurement, and edge-case profiles. This research stress-tests the Icosa across age groups, noise levels, and boundary conditions, confirming robust signal preservation and graceful degradation rather than catastrophic failure. The system performs reliably across diverse populations, giving clinicians and individuals confidence in the stability of their results.
Validation
Four synthesis papers testing the model against established criteria — convergent validity, measurement equity, clinical translation, and applied utility.
Convergent Validity: Does the Icosa Model Measure What Established Frameworks Measure?
Does the Icosa measure something real, or just something novel? This research tests convergent and discriminant validity against established instruments, finding that coherence behaves like a clinical outcome measure and profile types show meaningful stability over time. The twenty-dimension grid captures information beyond what simpler frameworks provide, confirming genuine explanatory value rather than redundant complexity.
Measurement Equity and Robustness: Does the Model Work Fairly?
A fair assessment must measure the same constructs the same way for everyone. This research examines measurement equity across demographic conditions, confirming that core structural relationships hold invariant and trap detection shows no group-level bias. Shorter assessment tiers preserve structural fidelity, meaning the model maintains its integrity regardless of who is being assessed or how quickly.
Clinical Translation: From Profile Structure to Clinical Utility
Can clinicians trust what the model tells them about their clients? This research tests whether grid geometry captures recognized clinical phenotypes, finding meaningful convergence between structural patterns and established diagnostic categories. The safety screen aligns with independent risk indicators, and cross-capacity spread predicts worse clinical outcomes — giving clinicians structural evidence that complements their professional judgment.
Applied Validation: Intervention Planning, Relationship Dynamics, and Cross-Framework Translation
What can you actually do with the results? This research tests the practical utility of centering plans, relationship dynamics mapping, and cross-framework translation in applied settings. Gateway-based centering plans predict completion and improvement, dyadic interaction types forecast relationship coherence, and translating results into other frameworks preserves clinically useful signal — confirming the model’s value extends beyond assessment into actionable guidance.