Most people believe their values are fixed. This is a way of finding out.
Run it for yourself: choose what matters most to you, make ten choices, and watch the pattern. Or run it for someone else: map what they claim to hold against what they actually do.
For yourself: ten situations. You choose. The pattern reveals itself.
Map someone else: run the same ten situations for someone in your life.
Give them a name, or leave it blank.
Optional. Used only in the results.
Choose two or three things that matter most to you.
Select at least two. No more than three.
Did that feel like a real choice, or just how things are?
The engine is built around one question: not whether you have the values you declared, but whether they're what actually makes the call when the call costs something.
Having a value and acting on it consistently are different things. Most people have the first. The gap between them, and the specific conditions that create it, is what this engine is designed to show.
What the results reveal is not a verdict. Soft-pedaling in a social situation is different from full compliance. A conscious calculation is different from an automatic move. Holding fully is different from holding instinctively. These distinctions matter because the thing that can change is the thing you can see clearly: the pattern, the trigger, the mechanism.
The question the engine leaves you with is not "do I have these values?" It's more specific: under what conditions do they become negotiable, and am I choosing that, or does it just happen to me?