A staged validation program turns the declared-vs-demonstrated consistency measure into an enterprise standard — measured against training-relevant outcomes, not against honesty or character.
Participants self-report their expected behavior; the simulation records what they actually do. The result is a mismatch rate and repeat-test stability — establishing that the measure captures a real, reproducible gap rather than noise.
Phase 2A subset of participants is instructed to present themselves as more disciplined than they intend to act; others respond as they normally would. The study tests whether ReadyConduct distinguishes the two — producing sensitivity (mismatches correctly identified) and specificity (consistent participants correctly cleared). This is what turns the tool from an interesting demo into a measured instrument.
For each lane, the measure is validated against job- or training-relevant outcomes — supervisor review, scenario pass/fail, remediation improvement, completion quality, retest improvement — never against "honesty" or character. In financial-services conduct, that means showing the consistency band tracks with training-relevant supervisory and remediation outcomes.
Phase 4Participants run multiple scenarios over time to show whether patterns stabilize — establishing test-retest reliability and ensuring the measure reflects a durable behavioral pattern, used for coaching and development rather than one-off judgment.
Each lane is validated against its own training-relevant outcomes. The first market is financial-services advisor conduct.
Advisor-conduct mismatches validated against supervisory review, scenario outcomes, and remediation improvement.
Role-judgment, narrative-consistency, professionalism, and command-readiness mismatches — each validated against that field's training-relevant outcomes, never honesty or character.