Methodology

Authorship

Everything you read on Metryval is written under the byline of Tomas Cantor.

That covers every Blueprint, every Resonance Read, every reveal page, and every Frequency community page.

The work is calibrated against a fixed voice canon, a framework-canon substrate of 36 peer-reviewed frameworks plus 9 methodology citations, and a chapter charter that locks the named beats for each Vectyr.

The voice is the instrument and the framework canon is the substrate, so both are documented and both are yours to check.

How the Blueprints are written

A Blueprint is written as scaffolding for your own self-understanding, not a verdict handed down to you.

The frame is Dan McAdams’ narrative-identity research, where the self develops in three layers: the Social Actor (dispositional traits), the Motivated Agent (goals and values), and the Autobiographical Author (the story-of-self that integrates past, present, and imagined future).

Metryval measures the Social Actor layer through the instrument and infers Motivated Agent patterns.

The chapters work at the third layer. They give you material for your own authorship; they do not tell you who you are.

Every claim traces to your measured coordinate and the framework behind it. The prose is written in one consistent narrator voice for coherence across the work, in a register of clinical observation that refuses to predict.

The framework canon

Metryval synthesizes a curated set of peer-reviewed psychological frameworks, currently 36 synthesized plus 9 cited as methodology precedents, into a 19-dimension measurement instrument.

The instrument carries approximately 370 active items in production, around 430 including pilot-only baselines, on a path to roughly 200 after the pilot.

Two of the 19 dimensions, Negative-Emotionality and Extraversion, were added in the 2026 Decision F architecture revision.

Those two are newly operationalized and not yet pilot-validated, so their structure and reference-pattern placement stay provisional until the pilot returns data.

The full list, including each framework’s current academic standing, recent critique events, and any reanchoring decisions, is named in the Framework Reception Ledger.

The Ledger is the canonical anchor, and the count may shift as the literature evolves.

On the tier breakdown, 23 frameworks pass a Tier-1 bar (gold-standard, 2026 reception strong) and 13 pass a Tier-2 bar (stable, specialized, watch-list).

All 36 synthesized frameworks are operationalized at item level.

Adult Attachment (ECR-R) and Narcissism G/V sit as polarity-zero metadata sidecars.

Nine more frameworks are cited as methodology precedents M-01 through M-09 with no dedicated items: IPIP-50, Seligman ASQ, ROCI-II, Snyder-1974 SMS, Kegan Constructive-Developmental Theory, Loevinger Ego Development WUSCT, BFAS, REI Faith in Intuition, and TAS-20.

Abele Big Two (Agency-Communion) was retired from operationalization in the 2026-05-15 audit cycle to remove construct contamination with SDT 4-regulation on the A-axis. It is R-02 in the Ledger.

The Moral Foundations Theory MFQ-30 instrument was retired in the 2026-05-19 cascade, after the items-by-framework fidelity audit returned a MISMATCHED verdict on items 157 and 166.

Those items use a somatic-empathic-distress register that is canonical Davis IRI Empathic Concern, not the third-person moral-judgment register the MFQ-30 instrument uses.

The Care/Harm construct survives in Metryval through the MFT Binding subscale and the IRI EC overlap. It is R-03 in the Ledger.

The constructs of all retired frameworks remain scientifically valid. Metryval simply no longer measures them through dedicated items.

Active monitoring of framework reception is a structural commitment, not a marketing claim.

Per-framework academic standing, including tier classifications, recent critique events, and reanchoring decisions, is published in the Framework Reception Ledger and updated as the literature evolves.

What the framework canon validates, and what it doesn’t

The framework canon validates the measurement layer: the 19 dimensions, the roughly 370 active items, and the L-F-K-D validity scales.

It does not claim that the 53 named patterns (“Vectyrs”) at launch are themselves framework-validated entities.

Vectyrs are theoretical reference patterns placed in a framework-validated 19-dimensional space.

Empirical alignment of the centroids to the population is validated through ongoing pilot data, not borrowed from the measurement-layer canon.

The policy decisions ledger

The Framework Reception Ledger names what the instrument measures and how the academic standing of each measured framework is moving.

A companion ledger, the Policy Decisions Ledger, names what the instrument is and is not for.

Both are public surfaces of the same costly-signal commitment. Where the framework ledger publishes per-framework reception status as the science evolves, the policy ledger publishes scope and boundary decisions as the product’s commitments evolve.

Each entry in the policy ledger has an ID (P-01, P-02, and so on), names the decision and its rationale in layers, lists the canonical sources, and states the conditions under which the entry would be reopened.

The first entry, P-01, records the exclusion of personnel-selection use cases under the EU AI Act Annex III high-risk classification, alongside the measurement-validity inversion that occurs in selection contexts.

Reference patterns, not categorical types

The 53 patterns Metryval renders at launch are reference patterns: theoretical anchors in the 19-dimensional space the instrument measures.

Your Resonogram names the pattern your coordinates resonate closest to, plus the orbital patterns nearby.

It does not assign you to a category.

This framing is structural, not stylistic.

The empirical natural cardinality of personality clustering is k=3-4 (Asendorpf 1999; Gerlach 2018, N=1.5M).

Categorical-type framing at higher cardinalities collapses under measurement noise. MBTI, at 16 types, returns about 75% retest disagreement at the type level (Pittenger 2005).

Metryval avoids that failure mode by treating reference patterns as assembly anchors, not boxes.

How Metryval reports your result

The mathematical pipeline that turns a response set into a Resonogram is deterministic and inspectable.

The same response set produces the same Resonogram every time.

No language model participates in the scoring path, and the distance metric and tier-classification thresholds are documented.

The coordinate frame

Every Resonogram is a coordinate in 19-dimensional PAREN space: Perception (5 dimensions), Agency (3), Responsiveness (4), Engagement (4), Navigation (3).

Each dimension is scored against published psychometric framework parameters.

The 12-item Lite produces a low-resolution coordinate. The full instrument, around 370 active items, produces a high-resolution coordinate with validity-scale flags.

Nearest reference centroid, by distance

The Vectyr registry is a set of theoretical reference centroids placed in the same 19-dimensional space.

Given your coordinate, the scoring engine computes the distance to every registered centroid and reports the nearest one (your primary pattern), plus the next 3 to 5 orbital centroids by ascending distance.

At launch the distance metric is Euclidean.

At N≥500 empirical responses with adequate dimensional coverage, the metric transitions to Mahalanobis, which corrects for inter-dimension correlation and gives a more conservative passage rate in correlated regions.

The transition is documented in advance in the Framework Reception Ledger and dated when it ships.

What the language means precisely

The rendered output reports proximity, not categorical assignment.

Required user-facing framings, with the structural reason for each:

• “Your pattern resonates with X.” Names the nearest centroid as the proximity anchor, not as an identity claim.
• “Your nearest reference pattern is X.” Surfaces “reference” explicitly so the theoretical-anchor status is legible.
• “Primary pattern + orbital patterns.” Names the full assembly (one primary, three to five orbitals) rather than collapsing the result into a single label.

Two classes of framing are excluded from user-facing copy.

The first is identity-claim language (“you are X” or “your type is X”), which collapses a coordinate into a bin and reproduces the categorical-framing failure mode that MBTI’s 75% retest disagreement at the type level documents (Pittenger 2005).

The second is categorical-assignment-with-modification language (the “part-X-part-Y” family of phrasings), which inherits the same failure mode while obscuring it.

The full enumeration of excluded terms lives at Methodology / Language constraints alongside the banned-vague-qualifier list.

What this is not

This is not categorical assignment, not Jungian typology, not MBTI binning, not Enneagram-point classification, and not horoscope-style allocation.

The coordinate-and-distance frame is the structural alternative to all of these.

The banned-framings enumeration on the Language page is the prose-level enforcement that the alternative is held to.

Cross-references

• Anti-Barnum threshold — the gate that determines whether a specific-pattern artifact renders at all, given your coordinate.
• Language constraints — the banned-vague-qualifier list and somatic-anchor requirement that enforce the prose-level rules above.

Why this isn’t MBTI

The most upvoted comment on r/MBTI’s own “is MBTI pseudoscience?” thread reads: “Yup, it’s pseudoscience. It’s a neat way to understand how our inner landscape works, but that’s it.”

A high-scored reply adds: “ESFP isn’t who I am. It’s a gross oversimplification of my being. And it’s because MBTI was never supposed to tell people who they are.”

The audience already knows.

The skeptic-tech audience converges on the same point in different words.

The most-upvoted critique on a recent Hacker News MBTI thread: “One of the many significant issues with the MBTI is that it’s a typology: you’re an E, an N, or whatever else; it’s all-or-nothing.”

Same objection, categorical typing, landing in two communities that almost never agree on anything else.

The same threads anchor legitimacy on the Big Five, the dimensional psychometric tradition MBTI set itself outside of in the 1940s.

Metryval’s substrate is that tradition: Big Five, HEXACO, and 34 other peer-reviewed frameworks operationalized into roughly 370 active items, with the 9 methodology citations cited as prior art, and with the L-F-K-D validity scales the audience correctly notes MBTI does not have.

Vectyrs are reference patterns inside that dimensional space, not categorical boxes the way ESFP and INFJ are.

The point of naming this is not to win an argument.

It is that the audience arrived at the diagnosis years ago and is waiting for a tool that takes the diagnosis seriously. Metryval is built to be that tool.

Why we synthesize Big Five rather than replace it

The Big Five is the engine. Metryval’s synthesis is the interface.

Decades of cross-cultural replication, test-retest correlations above r = 0.80 over months and years, and predictive validity for outcomes like job performance and well-being that outperforms categorical alternatives: that is the empirical floor we build on, not against.

The cohort that reads this page already knows the floor exists.

The question is not whether Big Five is real. It is what Big Five doesn’t give you, and what the synthesis adds.

What Big Five doesn’t give you is shared vocabulary.

A Hacker News commenter put the gap exactly: “The Big Five is empirically valid, though somewhat theoretically sparse.”

Five percentile scores describe you. They do not let two people compare themselves, they do not carry into a conversation, and they do not become a name your team remembers across a year of working together.

MBTI got the interface right and the engine wrong. Big Five got the engine right and never built the interface.

The durability of categorical labels, from 16Personalities to the Enneagram to the Hogan facets, is not a science failure. It is a cohort signal that recognition matters as much as measurement.

The Lexical Hypothesis, which underwrites Big Five itself, agrees: the words humans use to describe each other across centuries are not noise on top of dimensions; they are how dimensions become visible.

Metryval’s synthesis treats Big Five as the foundation and adds resolution.

The 19 dimensions operationalize the five factors at higher fidelity: BFAS aspects inside Openness and Conscientiousness, HEXACO’s sixth factor on the Honesty-Humility axis with Hilbig 2013’s Active/Reactive cooperation split, the dual-process distinction decomposed into separate P-Analytic and P-Intuitive dimensions, the future-time-perspective sub-construct split into Opportunities and Limitations per Cate & John 2007, and the somatic-regulation register elevated through MAIA-2 Trusting.

Thirty-four other peer-reviewed frameworks fill in the rest: ERQ for emotion-regulation strategy, MAIA-2 for interoceptive awareness, REI for the dual-process distinction, SDT for autonomy structure, Schwartz Values for what motivates action.

The Framework Reception Ledger names every one with its current academic status, including the one Tier-3 watch-list framework with explicit caveats (TAS-20).

We publish the ledger because the audience who reads this page can audit our footing the same way they audit Big Five’s.

What this leaves you with is not five numbers and not a four-letter category.

Vectyrs are reference patterns inside the synthesized 19-dimensional space: your primary pattern plus the orbital echoes nearby.

They carry into a conversation the way INTJ does, without losing the dimensional resolution that makes the conversation worth having.

They include Negative-Emotionality, which Big Five measures and MBTI doesn’t; Metryval’s Steady ↔ Reactive axis inherits it.

They include the regulation-strategy distinction Big Five doesn’t resolve.

They sit on a substrate the next generation of AI-driven behavioral inference is already trained against.

For a reader who has graduated from one personality test and is here vetting another: the floor is Big Five, and the resolution is what Big Five was always going to need next.

Why this isn’t another assessment your HR partner runs on you

Some of the most upvoted critiques of categorical assessment come from people who run them every quarter.

From a manager-thread on DISC: “Snake oil. People are not soup cans. ... an oversimplification like the DiSC assessment is unlikely to fix that.”

From an I/O psychology thread: “DiSC is basically MBTI repackaged.”

The empirically-aware cohort already names the gap. We are not pretending it is not there.

What the same threads also volunteer is that the tools are useful for what they are useful for.

From an I/O psychology comment: “Some tools are useful for the non-judgemental language they provide to discuss individual differences ... A good facilitator can draw value out of a bad tool.”

The DISC workshop and the CliftonStrengths team-debrief give a team a fast shared vocabulary. That is real value, and Metryval is not built to compete with it.

Metryval is built for the reader who has been through a workshop like that, gotten useful conversation out of it, and noticed the measurement underneath was thin.

The 19-dimension instrument is built on the same dimensional-psychometrics tradition Hogan, ADEPT-15, and SHL OPQ are built on, the empirical floor DISC and CliftonStrengths set themselves outside of in their typology layer.

The peer-reviewed frameworks synthesized into the instrument, currently 36 synthesized plus 9 cited as methodology precedents, are named in the Framework Reception Ledger with their current academic standing, including any with documented critique events. We publish the caveats.

The reader your HR partner sends to a workshop is not the reader Metryval is for.

The reader who has been to the workshop and wants the measurement underneath: that is who this is for.

DISC and CliftonStrengths give a team a shared language. Metryval gives the individual reader the depth that language is meant to point at.

The narrator voice

The Blueprints are written in one named narrator voice, Mara Vidal, so the work reads as a coherent whole. The name is a craft label for the on-page voice; it is not surfaced as a byline.

The register stays consistent: clinical observation paired with permitted hesitation, somatic anchoring (body location, texture, intensity), and a refusal to predict or to flatter.

The voice rules are documented and version-controlled, so the register holds steady across every chapter and every Vectyr.

Anti-Barnum discipline

Every claim a Blueprint makes is meant to be specific enough that only readers matched to that Vectyr would recognize themselves in it.

The internal phrasing is “1-of-53.” If a sentence could equally well describe a different Vectyr in the registry, the sentence is not specific enough yet, and it goes back into revision before lock.

Anti-Barnum runs at three altitudes: dimension-level (how a single dimension score reads in the body), type-level (how the 19-dimension configuration reads as a recognizable pattern), and cohort-level (how a Vectyr distinguishes from its same-cluster siblings and from the cross-cluster Vectyrs whose nearest-neighbor distance puts them in narrative range).

What we publish about

• The source of truth is the code. The instrument (currently around 370 active items, around 430 including pilot-only) lives in the repository. The framework-canon operationalization map is documented per facet, and the Framework Reception Ledger codifies per-framework academic standing. The 53 Vectyr registry, the cardinality decision rationale, and the ship-list selection criteria all live as canonical specs.
• The voice rules are documented. The Positive Voice Checklist, the Specificity Targeting classification, and the contraction-rhythm rule all live in version-controlled specs.
• The numbers we don’t show. We do not show rarity percentages. Frequency ordering does not imply hierarchy. Reference patterns are not ranked.
• Pilot data is held to validation, not promotion. Empirical alignment of the centroids to the population lands through ongoing pilot data. We do not promote a Vectyr from held-inventory to launch based on aesthetic appeal; we promote on catchment and recognition signal.

The 19-dimension architecture

The instrument resolves to 19 dimensions organized across 5 domains.

The domain partition is asymmetric (5+3+4+4+3). The Perception domain carries five dimensions because cognition and moral reasoning resolve into multiple independent components that we measure separately rather than collapse.

Each dimension anchors on a distinct construct boundary documented in the Per-Facet Construct-Definition memos.

• Perception (5): P-Analytic (NFC + CRT + AOT) · P-Intuitive (REI Experientiality) · I-Cog-Values (Welzel emancipative values) · I-Cog-Reasoning (DIT-2 P-score) · I-Moral (MFT Binding foundations)
• Responsiveness (4): R-Reappraisal (ERQ Cognitive Reappraisal) · R-Suppression (ERQ Expressive Suppression) · C-Somatic-Awareness (MAIA-2 Trusting + Noticing, Cerebral ⟷ Body-Trusting Somatic) · R-Negative-Emotionality (Negative Emotionality, Steady ⟷ Reactive)
• Agency (3): T-Future-Openness (Cate & John 2007 FTPS Opportunities) · T-Future-Limitation (Cate & John 2007 FTPS Limitations) · Intentionality (Bandura Self-Efficacy + Bateman-Crant Proactive)
• Engagement (4): M-Promotion (RFQ Promotion) · M-Prevention (RFQ Prevention) · Adaptability (SDT 4-regulation, Controlled Regulation ⟷ Autonomous Motivation) · M-Extraversion (Extraversion, Reserved ⟷ Outgoing)
• Navigation (3): S-Authentic (Wood Authentic Living) · H (HEXACO H + Hilbig 2013 H-Active/H-Reactive internal additive split, Communal ⟷ Strategic) · Prosocial (Davis IRI EC + Crandall SIS + Rotter ITS)

Each dimension has a written construct boundary specifying what is IN (frameworks operationalized and items allocated) and what is OUT (adjacent constructs that could be confused with this dimension but live elsewhere in the architecture).

The boundaries are auditable. We publish them on request.

Your Resonance Signature

The 19 dimensions resolve into a four-position arrangement we call the Resonance Signature: Melody, Harmony, Bass, and Rest.

After scoring, the instrument ranks your 19 dimensions by how far each pole sits from the population midpoint, then names the four endpoints of that ranking.

• Melody — the dimension whose pole is furthest from the midpoint. The one most observers reach for first.
• Harmony — the second-most-defining dimension. Modulates and counter-weights the Melody.
• Bass — the third. Grounds the Melody-Harmony pair under cognitive or emotional load.
• Rest — the dimension closest to the population midpoint. The pole that sits most quietly in your profile.

The Signature is a vocabulary, not a separate typology.

Every claim it makes is a structural observation about your own measured profile, not an inference about a category you belong to.

The Melody is which of your 19 dimensions carries the most weight, not which of 16 boxes you fit into.

Under acute stress the Rest position can briefly invert, an observable pattern we name the Rest grip. It is conceptually adjacent to MBTI’s inferior-function grip, but grounded in your actual measured weakest dimension rather than a type-prescribed function.

The architecture also extends to a stack-shape category (steep pyramid, flat-topped, even-spread, tilted, inverted-leading) that describes the overall posture of the profile.

Does one pole dominate? Do two poles share the lead? Does the magnitude fall off in even steps? Is the Rest position unusually quiet?

The stack-shape is a description, not a verdict.

The Signature surfaces on the Resonogram and inside the Blueprint header-block.

The community vocabulary built on top of it, the Family Guides, Pair Profiles, and Kindred Signatures, is detailed in the canonical Resonance Signature specification.

Frameworks operationalized

Every item in the instrument traces to a target framework and a target construct.

Most frameworks are operationalized through dedicated items.

Six source frameworks contribute their variance through bipolar projection of an originally multi-dimensional or unipolar construct: Schwartz Values, MFT Individualizing, AGT Mastery, SVO, SDT Autonomy, and Bandura Proactive Personality.

We frame those six as adaptations rather than direct replicas, with per-projection memos documenting what is captured and what is lost.

The Per-Item Evidence Ledger covers 155 substantive items.

Per-item entries name the verbatim item text, the target framework and construct, the primary published citation, the original-published-item comparison where one exists, the voice-rewrite mapping, the anti-Barnum check, and a defense paragraph.

The ledger is the spine of the audit. We share it on request.

Discriminant validity

A 19-dimension instrument has to defend that the dimensions are meaningfully distinct, not redundant slices of the same underlying variance.

The Theoretical Discriminant Validity Matrix documents 136 dimension-pair distinctions using discipline-specific vocabulary.

For example, Cognitive Style versus Integration is analytic-versus-intuitive processing speed (System-1/System-2) against foundational-versus-universal abstraction altitude (developmental stage), distinct on construct kind, not just degree.

Empirical evidence (correlation matrices, CFA fit statistics, HTMT ratios, average-variance-extracted comparisons) lands post-pilot through the validation sequence below.

The theoretical matrix is the pre-pilot defense surface.

Validity scales

The instrument carries four validity scales modeled on the MMPI-PAI-HEXACO lineage and adapted for soft enforcement: an L (Impression Management) soft-cap, an F (Infrequency) hard invalidation, a Hogan Prudence Subscale Proxy (convergent-pattern triangulation, metadata-only), and a Defensiveness Triangulation scale that fires only on convergent signals.

The L scale does not invalidate responses. It caps reported confidence at 0.70 with a surfaced caveat.

The F scale uses a mean-or-N-of-M rule (mean > 5 OR at least 2 of 4 items ≥ 5), not a single-item trigger, because single-item invalidation is a known false-positive failure mode.

The Hogan Prudence Proxy fires only when the L flag is present AND high A AND high C AND low N converge (the published “Reputation for Propriety” pattern). It never invalidates a response; it only annotates metadata for the Blueprint generator.

Polarity-zero sidecar items, the Auxiliary Metadata Flags in the audit’s defensible-name register, provide diagnostic signal without loading on the facet means.

Their precedent is the HEXACO Interstitial Items pattern (Ashton & Lee) and the MMPI Critical Items pattern (Koss & Butcher).

Empirical validation roadmap

Pre-launch, the instrument is theoretically defensible at the measurement layer.

Empirical alignment of the centroids to the population is committed as a dated post-launch trajectory, not a retrospective claim.

The validation sequence runs in four stages.

• Wave-0 pilot (N=100): feasibility, the completion-time floor, and a LongString careless-response screen.
• Wave-1 (N≥1,000): CFA model fit (CFI ≥ 0.92, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.08, WLSMV estimator), Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω ≥ 0.70 per facet, and configural-metric-scalar invariance testing.
• Methods pre-print: a PsyArXiv methods pre-print, auto-indexed by Google Scholar.
• Wave-2 (N=5,000): full DIF (Mantel-Haenszel plus IRT-based), test-retest D30/D90 r ≥ 0.70, MTMM convergent against IPIP-300 and HEXACO-PI-R, and submission to Personality and Individual Differences.

The study is pre-registered at OSF before the pilot fires; the link activates on filing.

Negative findings are committed for publication in advance. There is no file-drawer.

Quarterly progress reports land on this page until the first peer-reviewed results.

Known limitations

The audit surfaced specific limitations we publish in advance of any reviewer reaching them.

Each is paired with the defense the instrument carries.

• Bipolar projection of Schwartz Values and Achievement Goal Theory. Both are originally multi-dimensional structures (the Schwartz circumplex; the Elliot & McGregor 2×2 grid). Metryval projects each onto a single bipolar M-axis and labels this synthesis as adaptation, not replication. The full circumplex and full-grid resolution is not preserved at the facet level.
• Single-item reliability ceilings. Three framework-additions (Bateman & Crant Proactive Personality, Consideration of Future Consequences, the AGT Performance-Approach sidecar) are operationalized by a single item each. Single-item measures carry an upper-bound reliability constraint we acknowledge openly; the items contribute type-level precision, not facet-level anchoring.
• Triarchic Psychopathy module not shipped. A psychopathy sidecar was scoped during v4.4 planning and deferred without a launch path. The decision is documented; the gap is real, and we do not market the instrument as covering Dark Triad or Triarchic adjacency comprehensively.
• Two H/I-facet items carry register-exception exposure. A causal-attribution item and an MFT-Care/Harm item front-load somatic anchoring on cognitive-construct claims. Both items are flagged for empirical scrutiny in the post-pilot CFA cross-loading watch; if loadings deviate, the items get rewritten.
• L-scale threshold sensitivity in coaching cohorts. The L cutoff (5.5, T≈65 equivalent) catches impression management but may flag at higher base rates in self-improvement-oriented populations. Behavior is soft-cap, not invalidation, and the threshold is monitored in pilot data with a documented kill rule (re-tune if the flag rate exceeds 25% in a coaching cohort).

These five are not the whole list. We run a standing adversarial teardown against every facet, item, and design choice, and its findings drive the validation roadmap above.

If you want to read further

The full canonical specifications behind every claim on this page are documented and dated.

That includes the framework-canon audit log, the Framework Reception Ledger, the cardinality decision, the Resonance Read assembler spec, the voice canon, the centroid coverage audit, the Per-Item Evidence Ledger, the Discriminant Validity Matrix, the Per-Facet Construct Definitions, the six bipolar-projection memos, the Validity Scale Defense memo, the Reverse-Scoring Audit, and the Empirical Validation Roadmap.

We are happy to share specific citations on request.

Open methodology notice

METRYVAL is a registered trademark of Metryval Pte Ltd, Singapore.

The methodology terminology used throughout this work is open terminology, freely citable in academic literature, third-party research, and adjacent work without trademark concerns.

That includes RESONYR (the 19-dimension framework), VECTYR (the pattern-type construct), RESONOGRAM (the output-artifact construct), PAREN (the 5-domain mnemonic), the individual Vectyr names, and the Frequency cluster names.

This is intentional, per Metryval’s open-methodology commitment: the Y3 methodology paper will document the architecture in full, the framework moves to MIT-equivalent licensing by Y5, and validation datasets open at Y10.

Academic adoption requires open terminology, and we treat it that way from day one.