Personality assessments aren’t useless — they give you general information about who you’re dealing with. But “general” is the operative word: most run 50–60% accurate, and even when they’re right, they rarely produce a tangible takeaway a coaching staff can actually develop against.
Axiology is the study of how what a person values translates into how they actually behave. Built around that science, a behavioral model can move from general impressions to specific, scored signals — twenty distinct performance behaviors, each rated 0–100% and mapped to a zone (Critical, Needs Work, Solid, Elite), layered with a communication-style matrix (outgoing, diplomatic, direct) and a corresponding learning style.
The purpose isn’t the score itself — it’s what the score makes possible: identifying, for a specific individual, exactly which behaviors most need development, instead of guessing and spending limited coaching time on the wrong things. That precision is also what makes the model useful for recruiting and NIL decisions, where the cost of being wrong about a person, not just a player, keeps climbing.