{ "id": "behavior-fit-assessment", "title": "Behavior Fit Assessment (BFA) Comparison Spec", "version": "2.0.0", "status": "pre-release", "support_status": "unsupported", "status_note": "This public draft has no named toolkit maintainer or support commitment and has not been released as a validated instrument.", "canonical_url": "https://behavioralstrategy.com/glossary/behavior-fit-assessment/", "license": "CC-BY-4.0", "supersedes": "https://behavioralstrategy.com/tools/toolkit/behavior-fit-assessment.v1.json", "model_contract": { "description": "The Behavior Fit Assessment is a practitioner decision tool for comparing candidate behaviors across Dispositional Fit, Capability Fit, and Context Fit.", "epistemic_label": "It is not a validated measurement instrument.", "decision_rule": "Treat the minimum dimension as a bottleneck and prioritization heuristic; it is not a deterministic probability of behavior.", "starting_threshold": "A score of 6 out of 10 on each Behavior Fit Assessment dimension is a starting threshold that must be calibrated by domain, population, context, stakes, and observed behavior.", "legacy_alternate_names": { "dispositional_fit": [ "Identity Fit" ] }, "migration_rule": "Preserve historical assessments that used Identity Fit as BFA v1.x records. Do not silently relabel or compare their scores with BFA v2.0 without rescoring under the v2.0 definitions and anchors.", "relationship_to_bsm": "The Behavior Fit Assessment is informed by the Behavioral State Model but is not a literal one-to-one condensation or reassignment of its eight components.", "self_concept_boundary": "Self-concept and domain identity may provide adjacent evidence or a selection signal, but they do not define Dispositional Fit or the Behavioral State Model's historical Identity umbrella." }, "behavioral_state_model_boundary": { "version": "1.1", "description": "The Behavioral State Model is a practitioner diagnostic model with six Personal Components: Personality, Perception, Emotions, Abilities, Social Status/Situation, and Motivations. It also includes two Context Components: the Social Environment and Physical Environment.", "terminology_change": "Version 1.1 clarifies terminology without changing the original eight-component model. Personal Components is the primary explanatory label; Identity is retained only as Jason Hreha's historical technical alias for all six Personal Components.", "personal_components": [ "personality", "perception", "emotions", "abilities", "social_status_situation", "motivations" ], "context_components": [ "social_environment", "physical_environment" ], "historical_alias_for_personal_components": "Identity", "timescale_boundary": "The Personal Components operate on mixed timescales. Personality and some preferences may be relatively enduring, while perceptions, emotions, and active motivations may change quickly.", "identity_boundary": "In BSM, Identity is not synonymous with self-concept, social identity, aspirational identity, or identity-based habits.", "relationship_to_bfa": "BSM informs the Behavior Fit Assessment, but the BFA is not a literal one-to-one condensation or reassignment of BSM components.", "epistemic_label": "The Behavioral State Model is a practitioner model, not a validated psychometric instrument or a universal prediction equation." }, "scale": { "type": "integer", "min": 1, "max": 10, "interpretation": "Provisional practitioner ratings for comparing candidates. Rating anchors require domain and population calibration against observed behavior." }, "rating_profiles": { "comparison-1-10-v1": { "purpose": "Compare candidate behaviors within one defined population, context, time horizon, and decision.", "allowed_values": "integers 1 through 10", "calibration_rule": "Use the qualitative anchors below, record supporting and contrary evidence, and calibrate any numeric decision threshold to the named domain and population before use." }, "case-summary-categorical-v1": { "purpose": "Summarize an analyst's case interpretation for public reading; it is not a numeric measurement or a substitute for rescoring source evidence.", "allowed_values": ["High", "Medium", "Low"], "labels": { "High": "Available evidence indicates the relevant fit condition generally supports the behavior for the described population and setting.", "Medium": "Available evidence is mixed, segment-dependent, or leaves a meaningful but non-dominant constraint.", "Low": "Available evidence indicates a recurring, material mismatch or constraint for the described population and setting." }, "conversion_rule": "Do not mechanically convert categorical labels to numeric ratings or compare labels across cases. Each label requires a construct-specific evidence note." } }, "dimensions": [ { "id": "dispositional_fit", "name": "Dispositional Fit", "legacy_alternate_name": "Identity Fit", "definition": "The degree to which a candidate behavior matches the target population's relatively enduring tendencies and preferences over the decision-relevant time horizon.", "question": "Does this behavior fit what this population is reliably inclined to choose and sustain over the decision-relevant time horizon?", "rating_prompts": [ "What observed evidence shows recurring tendencies, preferences, interests, priorities, motives, typical responses, or status sensitivities relevant to this behavior?", "Which segments or situations show different dispositional patterns?", "What evidence would falsify the current rating?" ], "rating_anchors": [ { "range": "8-10", "meaning": "Representative evidence shows recurring tendencies or preferences strongly support choosing and sustaining the behavior over the relevant horizon." }, { "range": "6-7", "meaning": "The behavior is generally compatible with recurring tendencies or preferences, with limited or segment-specific tension." }, { "range": "4-5", "meaning": "Evidence is mixed or shows a meaningful recurring preference mismatch for important segments or situations." }, { "range": "1-3", "meaning": "Representative evidence shows enduring tendencies or preferences usually oppose choosing or sustaining the behavior." } ], "bsm_evidence_note": "Relatively enduring patterns across relevant Personal Components may inform this rating, but Dispositional Fit is not a score for all six Personal Components.", "self_concept_boundary": "Self-concept and domain identity may be adjacent evidence or a selection signal in a particular case, but they do not define Dispositional Fit." }, { "id": "capability_fit", "name": "Capability Fit", "definition": "Whether the target population has the actual abilities and skills required to perform the behavior.", "question": "Can the population actually perform this behavior with its current abilities and skills?", "rating_prompts": [ "What observed performance supports the rating?", "Which cognitive, physical, learned-skill, or knowledge constraints limit performance?", "What evidence would falsify the current rating?" ], "rating_anchors": [ { "range": "8-10", "meaning": "Observed performance indicates the required abilities and skills are already present for most of the defined population." }, { "range": "6-7", "meaning": "Most of the population can perform the behavior with minor learning or skill support." }, { "range": "4-5", "meaning": "Material ability or skill gaps limit reliable performance for important segments." }, { "range": "1-3", "meaning": "Most of the population lacks abilities or skills required to perform the behavior reliably." } ], "bsm_evidence_note": "The BSM Abilities component can inform Capability Fit even though Abilities remains one of the six Personal Components." }, { "id": "context_fit", "name": "Context Fit", "definition": "Whether the external social and physical environment supports the behavior.", "question": "Does the real external environment support this behavior?", "rating_prompts": [ "Which social conditions enable or inhibit the behavior?", "Which physical, temporal, material, access, tool, or infrastructure conditions enable or inhibit it?", "What evidence would falsify the current rating?" ], "rating_anchors": [ { "range": "8-10", "meaning": "The external social and physical environment reliably enables or reinforces the behavior." }, { "range": "6-7", "meaning": "The external environment is generally supportive or neutral, with limited recurring barriers." }, { "range": "4-5", "meaning": "Recurring social or physical barriers materially constrain the behavior in important situations." }, { "range": "1-3", "meaning": "The external environment usually blocks, penalizes, or strongly competes with the behavior." } ], "bsm_evidence_note": "Context Fit is informed by the BSM Social Environment and Physical Environment components only; emotions and motivations remain Personal Components." } ], "comparison_process": [ "Define the outcome, population, target behavior, decision-relevant time horizon, and realistic context.", "Record provisional ratings and the observed evidence behind each rating.", "Use the minimum dimension to identify a candidate bottleneck or validation priority, not to estimate behavior probability.", "Compare multiple candidate behaviors without treating a score as a pass or fail verdict.", "Calibrate any threshold by domain, population, and stakes, then validate the selected behavior through observation in realistic conditions." ], "outputs": [ "candidate_behavior_comparison", "provisional_dimension_ratings", "candidate_bottleneck", "evidence_gaps", "real_context_validation_plan" ], "evidence_ids": [ "BS-0023", "BS-0029", "BS-0039", "BS-0048" ], "limitations": [ "The specification does not estimate behavior probability or outcome probability.", "The minimum rating is a prioritization heuristic, not a deterministic feasibility rule.", "BFA dimensions are informed by BSM but are not a one-to-one reassignment of BSM components.", "Observed validation is required before treating a candidate behavior as established in a domain and population." ] }