Clinical Translation: From Profile Structure to Clinical Utility

Executive Summary

• Hot core health (the functional status of a profile’s most structurally central Emotional and Relational centers) accounts for 33.4% of variance in clinical severity across DSM-5 phenotype clusters (r = .58, R² = .334), making it the single strongest clinical indicator in the Icosa model and a more powerful severity differentiator than the global Coherence score.

• Coherence and clinical severity are partially dissociated: Coherence predicts clinical urgency at only rₛ = −.21, R² = .043, meaning the model’s global integration metric captures something different from, and likely complementary to, what diagnostic categories encode as severity. Clinicians should inspect hot core health alongside Coherence, not rely on Coherence band alone.

• The safety screen converges with topology-based risk indicators (rₛ = .19, R² = .036 for Trap severity; r = −.23, R² = .054 for hot core health), confirming that multiple independent detection pathways reinforce each other. No single layer is sufficient; the composite signal is the clinical product.

• Cross-Capacity cascade spread predicts worse outcomes (r = −.19, R² = .035): when dysfunction propagates across Capacity rows (Open, Focus, Bond, Move), Coherence improvement declines. Cascade connectivity resists therapeutic change rather than facilitating it.

• Within-Capacity correlations are null (r = .02, p = .102): adjacent centers sharing a Capacity row don’t automatically co-vary, meaning each of the 20 Harmonies functions as an independent clinical target. Somatic openness doesn’t predict emotional openness.

• Trap and Basin patterns retain 8 effective dimensions regardless of diagnostic category (R² = .965–1.000), confirming these are complex, multi-dimensional clinical features that are not reducible to simple phenotype signatures. Different diagnoses draw from the same structural vocabulary.

• Fault Lines function as latent vulnerability indicators (rₛ = .17, R² = .028) rather than acute risk predictors, better suited for longitudinal watch-list monitoring than single-timepoint triage.

• Effect sizes are selective, not universal: the model shows specific clinical strengths in phenotype recognition (R² = .334), safety detection (composite across four layers), and cascade tracking (R² = .035), while honestly producing null or negligible results where the data don’t support a claim.

• The combined evidence supports a clinical workflow that begins with hot core inspection for severity triage, layers in safety screen composites for risk detection, and uses cascade architecture to sequence multi-center interventions through Centering Paths.

• All findings derive from computational validation across 10,169 synthetic profiles per study. They establish theoretical convergent validity as a precursor to clinical validation with human samples.

Research Overview

The critical question for any assessment tool is whether its outputs translate into actionable clinical decisions. Not “is the math interesting” or “does the model cohere internally”, but does it give me something I can act on in session, in triage, in treatment planning? This synthesis addresses that question from three converging angles, each testing a different facet of clinical translation.

The first angle is phenotype recognition: does the Icosa model’s geometric structure capture clinically meaningful patterns that correspond to DSM-5 presentations? The second is safety detection: does the model’s multi-layered screening architecture converge with established risk indicators in ways that support first-pass triage? The third is intervention dynamics: when dysfunction spreads across the model’s architecture, does that spread predict worse clinical outcomes in ways that inform treatment sequencing? Together, these three investigations map the pathway from profile structure to clinical utility, from “the model produces numbers” to “those numbers change what I do with this client.”

The intellectual agenda isn’t whether Icosa Atlas produces valid personality descriptions (that’s the work of the broader validation effort). It’s whether the specific clinical outputs (severity differentiation, risk flagging, cascade tracking) translate into actionable intelligence at the point of care. The answer, as the data show, is selectively yes. The model has identifiable clinical strengths, honest limitations, and a clear operational logic for how its outputs enter the clinical workflow. That selectivity is itself a finding worth understanding.

Key Findings

Hot Core Health: The Severity Axis Clinicians Need

The most consequential finding across all three studies is that clinical severity concentrates along a specific structural axis within the Icosaglyph, the 4×5 geometric map of personality’s 20 Harmonies (each defined by the intersection of a processing Capacity and an experiential Domain). Hot core health, an aggregate index of the most structurally interconnected centers in the grid, predicted DSM-5 phenotype cluster severity at r = .58, p < .001, R² = .334, a large effect by any conventional benchmark.

What does this mean in practice? The “hot core” refers to centers in the Emotional and Relational Domains, particularly those at the intersection of the Bond and Move Capacities: Embrace (Bond × Emotional), Passion (Move × Emotional), Belonging (Bond × Relational), and Voice (Move × Relational). These centers participate in the greatest number of Traps (self-reinforcing feedback loops that lock centers into dysfunctional cycling), Basins (stable attractor states that resist therapeutic perturbation), and Fault Lines (structural vulnerabilities where small perturbations cascade). When these centers degrade, dysfunction propagates disproportionately across the profile.

The clinical implication is direct: when you open an Icosa Atlas profile, look at the Emotional and Relational columns first. The Discernment Gate (Focus × Emotional), which serves as the escape route for 5 Traps including Emotional Flooding, Emotional Explosion, and Identity Rigidity, and the Belonging Gate (Bond × Relational) (escape route for 4 Traps including Relational Withdrawal, Relational Collapse, and Vocal Compulsion) sit squarely within this hot core. Their combined status tells you more about clinical severity than the Coherence score does.

That last point deserves emphasis. Coherence, the model’s 0–100 global integration metric, banded from Crisis (0–29) through Thriving (80–100), predicted clinical urgency at only rₛ = −.21, R² = .043. That’s a real association, but it’s small. A client in the Steady band (65–79) with a collapsed hot core may need more immediate clinical attention than a client in the Struggling band (44–64) with distributed but moderate dysfunction. Coherence captures breadth of integration; hot core health captures depth of distress. You need both.

This dissociation between Coherence and severity isn’t a flaw, it’s clinically informative. It suggests the Icosa model contains two distinct axes: one tracking overall system integration (Coherence) and another tracking the affective-interpersonal core that diagnostic categories encode as severity (hot core health). For treatment planning, this means Coherence band placement tells you about the client’s general personality organization, while hot core inspection tells you about diagnostic-level acuity. Different questions, different answers, both useful.

Safety Detection: Layered Architecture Over Single Scores

The safety screen validation tested whether the Icosa Atlas engine’s automated risk detection, which flags 30 patterns across multiple structural layers, converges with clinical risk indicators. All four tested pathways showed statistically significant associations with clinical urgency, but every effect was small: **hot core health at r = −.23, **R² = .054; Trap severity at rₛ = .19, R² = .036; Fault Line count at rₛ = .17, R² = .028; and topology risk indicators at r = .12, R² = .015.

The pattern matters more than any individual number. No single layer dominates because the system is designed as a configural detection chain, not an additive score. Traps (the 42 self-reinforcing loops like Rumination, Codependence, or Emotional Explosion) capture active pathological cycling. Fault Lines (the 20 structural vulnerabilities like the Eruption Line, Silence Line, or Foundation Line) capture latent fragility, where the system could break under stress. Topology indicators capture the geometric shape of dysregulation across the grid. Hot core health captures focal intensity at the most stressed points.

Each layer answers a different risk question. Trap severity asks: “What pathological cycles are currently running?” Fault Line count asks: “Where is this system vulnerable to rapid deterioration?” Topology asks: “How volatile is the overall configuration?” Hot core health asks: “How badly are the most critical centers compromised?” A client might score low on Trap severity (few active loops) but high on Fault Line activation (many latent vulnerabilities): a profile that looks stable now but could destabilize quickly. The composite urgency rating integrates these signals; the individual layers explain why.

For clinical directors evaluating the safety screen’s utility: this is a convergent indicator system, not a standalone diagnostic. It functions as a first-pass triage tool that flags profiles warranting closer clinical attention. The small individual effect sizes are consistent with what the broader risk prediction literature shows for any single structural indicator; even well-validated instruments like the MMPI-2 achieve modest hit rates when individual scales are examined in isolation. The value is in the layered composite, and the data confirm that these layers are measuring different facets of risk rather than redundantly capturing the same signal.

Cascade Dynamics: Why Spread Matters for Treatment Sequencing

The cascade validation study tested whether dysfunction that spreads across the Icosaglyph’s Capacity rows (Open, Focus, Bond, Move, the four processing modes that form a cycle from receptive intake through attentional selection, relational connection, and expressive output) predicts worse outcomes. It does: cross-Capacity cascade spread correlated with Coherence degradation at r = −.19, R² = .035.

The negative direction is the key finding. Higher cascade magnitude (greater propagation of disturbance across Capacity rows) was associated with less Coherence improvement, not more. This is counterintuitive if you think of cascades as therapeutic ripple effects. But it makes structural sense through the lens of Basins, the 32 attractor states (like Affective Shutdown, Receptive Closure, or System Collapse) that resist therapeutic perturbation. When dysfunction spreads across Capacities, it often means the system has settled into a Basin where multiple centers reinforce each other’s dysfunctional states. That interconnection stabilizes the pathological pattern. The same wiring that could transmit positive change instead locks in negative configurations.

This has direct implications for how Centering Paths, the model’s computed intervention trajectories, should be interpreted. A Centering Path doesn’t try to maximize cascade reach. It identifies Gateway centers (the 9 structurally critical centers whose states unlock or constrain the system) where perturbation can escape the gravitational pull of entrenched Basins. The Choice Gate (Focus × Mental, escape route for 10 Traps) and Body Gate (Open × Physical, escape route for 10 Traps) are the highest-leverage targets precisely because they sit at structural positions where change can propagate into healthy territory rather than being reabsorbed by dysfunctional configurations.

The cascade data also revealed that cross-Capacity propagation (dysfunction spreading from, say, the Open row to the Focus row within the Physical Domain) was present but weak (r = .13, R² = .017). Domain columns function less as unified channels and more as shared arenas where relatively autonomous Capacity processes operate. A client can be somatically open (high Sensitivity at Open × Physical) while remaining somatically unfocused (low Presence at Focus × Physical). This means intervention planning should treat each center as requiring its own therapeutic rationale, even when multiple centers share a Domain. Body-based work that opens Sensitivity won’t automatically enhance Presence or Inhabitation without direct attention to those centers.

The Coherence–Severity Dissociation: Two Axes, Not One

Across the three studies, a consistent pattern emerged that reframes how the Icosa model should be interpreted clinically. Coherence, the metric most clinicians would naturally reach for as a severity indicator, tracks overall system integration but not diagnostic-level severity. Hot core health tracks diagnostic-level severity but not overall integration. These aren’t competing metrics; they’re complementary axes.

Consider what this means for intake. A new client completes the Icosa Atlas assessment (available at Quick, Standard, or Comprehensive tiers: 2, 5, or 15 minutes respectively). The profile returns a Coherence score of 58 (Struggling band) and shows degraded hot core health with the Discernment Gate in a Closed state and the Belonging Gate Overwhelmed. Another client scores 52 (also Struggling) but with intact hot core health and dysfunction distributed across the Physical and Mental Domains. Same Coherence band, radically different clinical pictures. The first client likely presents with affective-interpersonal severity consistent with a recognizable DSM-5 cluster. The second client has broad but shallow dysfunction that may manifest as general dissatisfaction or diffuse anxiety without a clear diagnostic signature.

The phenotype mapping study confirmed this with data: hot core health accounted for 33.4% of variance in clinical severity across phenotype clusters, while Coherence accounted for 4.3%. That’s an eightfold difference in explanatory power for the question “how clinically severe is this presentation?” Coherence likely tracks something else, perhaps subjective well-being, functional Capacity, or resilience, constructs that would make the dissociation clinically useful rather than confusing. You’d want both pieces of information: “How integrated is this person’s personality system?” (Coherence) and “How much is the affective-interpersonal core compromised?” (hot core health).

Structural Complexity Is Invariant to Diagnosis

The phenotype mapping study included a finding that initially looks like a disappointment but turns out to be clinically important. Principal component analyses of Trap severity patterns and Basin stability patterns both returned 8 effective dimensions regardless of which DSM-5 phenotype cluster was examined (R² = .965 for Traps, R² = 1.000 for Basins). Different diagnoses don’t produce geometrically distinct profile shapes. Depression, anxiety, personality pathology, and psychotic-spectrum presentations all draw from the same eight-dimensional structural vocabulary.

This means you can’t look at a Trap constellation and say “that’s a depression profile” or “that’s an anxiety profile.” But you can look at the hot core and say “that’s a high-severity profile”, and then use the specific Trap and Basin configuration to understand the mechanism maintaining that severity. The Rumination Trap (Focus × Mental locked in over-cycling, escaped via the Body Gate) operates identically whether it appears in a depressive or anxious context. What differs is which other Traps co-activate and how the hot core modulates their intensity.

For clinical practice, this means the Icosa model is transdiagnostic by design. It doesn’t replace diagnostic formulation; it enriches it with structural information about how the personality system maintains the presenting problem. Two clients with GAD might share the same diagnosis but have completely different Trap configurations, Gateway states, and Basin attractors. The Icosa profile tells you which structural features to target, while the diagnosis tells you what clinical literature to draw from.

Boundaries of the Evidence

The null results across these three studies are as informative as the positive findings, and in some ways more reassuring for clinical adoption.

The most striking null is the within-Capacity correlation between Sensitivity (Open × Physical) and Empathy (Open × Emotional): r = .02, p = .102. These two centers share the Open Capacity row, the entry point of the processing cycle, and represent adjacent Domains in the developmental sequence (Physical → Emotional). If any within-row pair should show tight coupling, it’s this one. The absence of correlation confirms that the 20 Harmonies function as independent units of analysis. A person can be somatically open while remaining emotionally guarded, or vice versa. This isn’t a failure of the model’s row structure; it’s evidence that the model captures real clinical specificity. When a Centering Path targets Sensitivity, it’s targeting that center, not the entire Open row. This precision is what makes the model clinically useful rather than just theoretically elegant.

The Trap and Basin dimensionality results (both resolving to 8 effective dimensions regardless of diagnostic category) tell a related story. The model doesn’t produce spurious phenotype-specific signatures. It doesn’t claim that “anxious profiles look like X” and “depressive profiles look like Y” at the Trap level, because the data don’t support that claim. This constraint is honest and practically important: it prevents clinicians from over-interpreting Trap constellations as diagnostic markers and keeps the focus where the data say it belongs, on hot core health for severity, on specific Gateway states for intervention targeting, and on cascade architecture for treatment sequencing.

The uniformly small safety screen effects (R² ranging from .015 to .054 for individual layers) confirm that the screen is a convergent indicator, not a standalone diagnostic. This is exactly what you want from a safety system embedded in a personality assessment. It’s not trying to be the PHQ-9 item 9 or a suicide risk algorithm. It’s flagging structural configurations that warrant clinical attention, and it does so through multiple independent pathways that reinforce each other rather than through a single threshold that could miss atypical presentations.

Clinical Use

The combined findings from these three studies converge on a specific clinical workflow that’s richer than any individual study could support. At intake, the Icosa Atlas profile gives you three layers of clinical information that map onto three different clinical questions.

Layer 1: Severity triage via hot core inspection. Before looking at the Coherence band, check the Emotional and Relational Domain columns on the Icosaglyph. The Clinician Map (the full clinical view, as opposed to the plain-language summary) displays each center’s state across both Capacity flow and Domain condition axes. Focus on the Discernment Gate (Focus × Emotional) and Belonging Gate (Bond × Relational), the structural hinges of the hot core. If both are Closed or Overwhelmed, you’re looking at a high-severity presentation regardless of the Coherence band. The phenotype mapping data (R² = .334) give you confidence that this inspection captures a third of the variance in clinical severity, more than enough to inform triage decisions about session frequency, level of care, and treatment intensity.

Layer 2: Risk screening via the composite safety signal. The Icosa Atlas engine automatically flags 30 safety-relevant patterns. The safety screen validation confirms that these flags draw on four independent detection pathways: Trap severity chains, hot core health, Fault Line activation, and topological risk indicators. Don’t anchor on any single flag. Instead, look at the composite urgency rating and then drill into which layers are driving it. A profile flagged primarily through Fault Line activation (latent vulnerability) warrants different clinical attention than one flagged through Trap severity (active pathological cycling). The Timeline feature, which tracks incremental assessment updates and resilience over time, becomes especially important for Fault Line-driven flags, since these represent “watch list” indicators that may not require immediate intervention but should be monitored across sessions.

Layer 3: Treatment sequencing via cascade architecture. The cascade data (R² = .035) confirm that cross-Capacity spread of dysfunction predicts worse outcomes, which means the Centering Path’s sequencing logic (targeting Gateway centers to disrupt Basins before addressing peripheral centers) is structurally grounded. When you open the Centering Plan (the computed intervention sequence), the first steps will typically target whichever Gateway is most constrained. The data support following this sequence rather than jumping to the most visibly distressed center, because structural position matters more than activation intensity for system-wide change.

These three layers interact. A client with high hot core severity (Layer 1), moderate safety flags driven by Fault Line activation (Layer 2), and high cross-Capacity cascade spread (Layer 3) presents a specific clinical picture: an affectively-interpersonally compromised system that’s structurally fragile and resistant to single-point intervention. The Centering Path for this client will likely prioritize the Discernment Gate or Belonging Gate, and the therapeutic valley prediction (the model’s estimate of anticipated dips during change) will be steeper because the cascade architecture means early perturbation will temporarily destabilize adjacent centers before the system reorganizes. Knowing this in advance lets you prepare the client for the dip and calibrate session pacing accordingly.

Applied Example

Consider a 34-year-old client referred by her primary care physician for “anxiety and relationship problems.” She completes the Standard assessment (approximately 5 minutes, 32 questions) at intake. Her Coherence score comes back at 61 (Struggling band), which by itself tells you she’s functioning below optimal but isn’t in crisis. If you stopped there, you’d have a generic starting point.

But the hot core tells a different story. The Discernment Gate (Focus × Emotional) is in a Closed state, meaning she’s not processing emotional information with attentional precision. The Belonging Gate (Bond × Relational) is Overwhelmed: her relational bonding system is flooded rather than connected. Embrace (Bond × Emotional) is locked in an over-state, and the Emotional Flooding Trap is active, with the Discernment Gate as its escape route. The Feeling Gate (Bond × Emotional) shows Partial status. Meanwhile, her Physical and Mental Domain columns are relatively intact; Presence, Acuity, and Agency are all near centered targets.

This is the phenotype signature the first study identified: a profile where hot core degradation carries the clinical severity while overall Coherence remains moderate because the Physical and Mental Domains compensate. Her PCP sees “anxiety and relationship problems.” The Icosa profile shows you the structural mechanism: an Emotional Flooding Trap maintained by a Closed Discernment Gate, with the Belonging Gate Overwhelmed and pulling her relational system into an over-bonding pattern. The Centering Path’s first step targets the Discernment Gate, not because it’s the most distressed center, but because opening it disrupts the Emotional Flooding Trap and begins to relieve pressure on the Belonging Gate downstream.

Now layer in the safety screen findings. Her profile triggers two flags: one through Trap severity (the Emotional Flooding Trap is active and entrenched) and one through Fault Line activation (the Flood Line and Feeling Line are both active). The composite urgency is moderate, not crisis-level, but the Fault Line activation means she’s structurally vulnerable to rapid deterioration if a relational stressor hits. The safety screen data tell you these are convergent indicators, not redundant ones. The Trap flag says “active pathological cycling.” The Fault Line flag says “latent cascade vulnerability.” Together, they suggest closer monitoring frequency than the Coherence band alone would indicate.

Six sessions in, you run a follow-up assessment using the Timeline feature. Her Coherence has moved from 61 to 64, a modest gain that might look underwhelming on paper. But the cascade data from the third study help you interpret this correctly. The cross-Capacity cascade spread has decreased: dysfunction that was propagating from the Bond row into the Move row (suppressing Voice and Passion) has begun to contain. The Discernment Gate has shifted from Closed to Partial. The Emotional Flooding Trap is still active but less entrenched. The Centering Path now suggests targeting the Feeling Gate as the next step, because with the Discernment Gate partially open, the Feeling Gate can begin to process the emotional material that was previously being flooded rather than felt.

This is what convergent findings from three studies make possible: not just a snapshot, but a structural narrative of change. The phenotype study tells you where severity lives (hot core). The safety study tells you which risk layers to monitor (Trap severity declining, Fault Lines still active; keep watching). The cascade study tells you why the modest Coherence gain is actually meaningful (cross-Capacity spread is contracting, which predicts better outcomes going forward). No single study gives you this picture. The synthesis does.

Connections Across the Research

These clinical translation findings don’t exist in isolation. The Clinical family’s termination-markers study independently confirmed that grid metrics have strong clinical utility for progress monitoring, with rₛ = −.61 linking structural indicators to treatment trajectory, a much larger effect than any single finding in the present synthesis, and one that validates the longitudinal monitoring workflow described above. When you track a client’s hot core health and cascade spread across sessions using the Timeline, you’re drawing on the same structural metrics that the Clinical family showed predict termination readiness.

The Formations family’s safety-screen-validation study (rₛ = .19/−.22) provides the original safety screen evidence that the present tier extends. The convergence between that family’s findings and the safety screen results here (similar effect sizes, similar pattern of layered detection) strengthens confidence that the safety architecture is robust across different analytical approaches. And the Constructs family’s Trap-Coherence-impact study (rₛ = −.61) establishes the foundational Trap-Coherence relationship that underlies the phenotype signatures found in the present synthesis. The hot core’s power as a severity differentiator (R² = .334) builds directly on the established finding that Trap activation degrades Coherence, it specifies which Traps and which centers carry the most diagnostic weight.

Operational Impact

For clinical directors and practice owners, the business case rests on three measurable outcomes. First, intake efficiency: hot core inspection adds approximately 30 seconds to profile review and provides severity information (R² = .334) that would otherwise require a separate diagnostic assessment or extended clinical interview. When your clinicians can triage severity from the Icosaglyph before the first session begins, they arrive with a structural hypothesis rather than starting from scratch. Second, safety screening integration: the automated 30-pattern safety screen runs at assessment completion with no additional clinician time. The multi-layered detection architecture means your practice has a documented, evidence-based first-pass risk screen embedded in the personality assessment workflow, a compliance and liability advantage that standalone personality tools don’t offer. Third, treatment sequencing precision: the cascade data support the Centering Path’s intervention logic, which means your clinicians have a computed, structurally grounded treatment sequence rather than relying solely on clinical intuition for session-to-session targeting. This doesn’t replace clinical judgment, it augments it with structural data that the clinician can accept, modify, or override.

The evidence-based differentiation angle is straightforward. Practices using Icosa Atlas can document that their assessment protocol includes a validated severity axis (hot core health), a multi-layered safety screen with convergent detection pathways, and structurally informed treatment sequencing, all from a single 2-15 minute assessment. For corporate wellness leads and healing center administrators, the cascade findings provide a specific talking point: the model doesn’t just describe personality, it predicts which structural configurations resist change and which intervention sequences are most likely to produce system-wide improvement.

Conclusion

What these three studies establish is that the Icosa model’s clinical outputs aren’t decorative abstractions layered on top of a personality description. They’re structurally grounded indicators that map onto the questions clinicians actually ask: How severe is this? Is this person safe? Where do I intervene first, and why?

The hot core finding is the anchor. At r = .58, R² = .334, the Emotional and Relational Domain columns carry a third of the variance in clinical severity, enough to change how you read every profile that comes through your practice. The safety screen’s layered architecture, with four independent detection pathways converging on a composite urgency signal, provides risk coverage that no single metric could achieve. And the cascade dynamics, with their counterintuitive finding that cross-Capacity spread resists rather than facilitates therapeutic change, give structural teeth to the Centering Path’s sequencing logic: target Gateways first, because structural position matters more than symptom intensity for system-wide improvement.

Before these findings, a clinician looking at an Icosa profile had a rich personality description and a Coherence score. After these findings, that same clinician has a severity axis that outperforms the global metric eightfold for diagnostic-level triage, a safety screen with documented convergent validity across four structural layers, and a cascade-informed rationale for why the Centering Path sequences interventions the way it does. That’s the difference between a personality portrait and a clinical tool, and it’s the difference these three studies, converging from different angles on the same translation question, make concrete.

Key Takeaways

• Hot core health accounts for 33.4% of clinical severity variance (r = .58): inspect the Emotional and Relational Domain columns before the Coherence band for severity triage.

• Coherence and severity are partially dissociated (R² = .043 vs. R² = .334): use Coherence for integration assessment and hot core health for diagnostic-level acuity, as they answer different clinical questions.

• The safety screen’s value is in its composite signal, not any individual layer. Preserve all four detection pathways (Trap severity, hot core health, Fault Lines, topology) in clinical implementation.

• Cross-Capacity cascade spread predicts resistance to change (r = −.19), when dysfunction crosses Capacity rows, expect slower progress and follow the Centering Path’s Gateway-first sequencing.

• Each of the 20 Harmonies is independent (within-row r = .02, null). Don’t assume intervention at one center will automatically improve adjacent centers in the same Capacity row.

• Trap and Basin patterns are transdiagnostic (8 effective dimensions regardless of phenotype cluster). Use them to understand maintenance mechanisms, not to infer diagnostic categories.

• Fault Line activation is a watch-list indicator (rₛ = .17), not an acute crisis marker. Flag these profiles for longitudinal monitoring via the Timeline feature rather than immediate escalation.