These are the working things: instruments you point at a real situation and get something back from. Some are paid, some are free, and each has its own way in. A licensed ETHOS has all of them at no cost.
Twenty-one structural requirements an organisation needs to last, ranked by what most reliably ends one. You answer for your own group and get a weighted reading back. Two minutes, nothing stored, no sign-up. It is the same instrument we score ourselves against, and our own scores are published with it.
Run the self-checkOpens in a new window.How a group decides together without voting. A proposal goes out, anyone affected gives advice, and every objection has to arrive with a solution, so disagreement becomes the material rather than the obstacle. Nobody is outvoted, so there is no losing half left to resist the result.
Try the decision wheelOpens in a new window.The guide that answers questions about all of this in plain words. Free to everyone by design, and it stays that way. It will tell you what is built, what is not, and where it does not know. It gives no prices, no legal or financial answers, and never rules on whether a group is ready.
it is already on this site, at the side, wherever you switched it on.
Open OmniGuideOpens in a new window.Shows how what you actually spend your days on lines up with what you say matters to you. You name your priorities, add what fills your time, rate each one, and see it ranked. A mirror, not a boss. It is a free example, open to anyone. What you enter stays in your own browser and is never sent to us, so clearing your browser clears it.
Open AIMMost people meet pressure without seeing it. A rushed decision, a question that only has two answers, a room agreeing because it feels like everyone already has. These three tools exist so that pressure becomes visible while it is happening, because pressure that can be seen stops working.
The psychological matrix was built against a book: Edward Bernays' Propaganda, written in 1928 by the man who invented public relations, about how a public is moved. Read it as an instruction manual and the matrix is the answer to it. We are not resisting an imaginary enemy. We took the method seriously enough to write down what it looks like from the inside.
A library of twenty patterns of influence and manipulation, each with a severity from one to four: a mild signal at one, a decision-integrity concern at three, coercion at four.
The principle underneath it: people are easier to move when decisions are rushed, when identity is brought into it, when uncertainty is turned into false certainty, or when authority stands in for a reason. People keep their footing when time is preserved, when comparison is allowed, when consent is asked for out loud, and when they reach their own meaning.
It is not a test and it is never applied to a person. It reads a conversation, not a character.
This matrix is not one of the twenty-one things we measure, and it changes what all of them are worth. Every criterion is scored on evidence: a written agreement, a decision trail, a published record. Each of those is a record of what people said, and what people say is shaped by the conditions they said it under. A pattern from this library running in the room does not falsify the record; it changes what the record is evidence of. So a system can produce complete, honest, well-kept documentation of decisions that nobody was free to refuse, and score well on the paperwork while failing at the thing the paperwork was meant to prove.
The clearest case is the decision criterion, and it is the one most people assume is safe. The top band asks for a trail showing that disagreement was integrated rather than outvoted. A trail like that can be produced two ways. One is a group that genuinely surfaced objections and built them in. The other is a group where urgency framing compressed the window, belonging pressure made objecting expensive, and consent by momentum closed the item before anyone tested it. Both produce the same document. Read on its own the document earns a high score; read with the conditions named it earns a low one. That is why the matrix sits under the scoring rather than beside it: it is the question of whether the evidence means what it appears to mean.
Psychological safety is the measured version of that question, and the research is stronger than most people expect. Google's Project Aristotle studied 180 teams and found psychological safety the single strongest predictor of team performance, accounting for 43% of the variance in effectiveness (published 2016, and the figure has held in the replications since). Amy Edmondson's earlier work found the same thing in a way worth stating plainly: safer teams reported more errors, not fewer, because they were the only teams where reporting one was survivable. Applied to an assessment, this is the whole point. A group with low safety returns cleaner answers, because the answers that would have cost something never get given. An instrument that does not account for that rewards silence and calls it agreement.
The consequence for the twenty-one criteria is the same in every case, which is why this is one block and not twenty-one. Wherever a criterion is evidenced by something people wrote, said or signed, the patterns in this library are what decide whether that evidence is a signal or an artefact of pressure. Agreements, conflict repair, safe exit, onboarding and drift all rest on records of voluntary participation. Where the conditions were unsafe, the record understates the problem in exactly the places the problem was worst.
What this does not do. It does not score anyone, and no pattern here is ever attached to a person; the library describes conditions, not character. It does not adjust any of the twenty-one scores automatically, and no score anywhere is raised or lowered by it: every number on our instrument is set by evidence and by a human reading it. And it does not diagnose: naming a pattern is the beginning of a conversation about how a group decides, not a conclusion about what a group is.
TRACE reads a real transcript against those patterns and shows where pressure and bad reasoning actually occurred, who it landed on, and how severe it was. Advisory, never a judge. It hands the room what it saw, and the people in it decide what it means.
Reads a meeting transcript and shows where pressure and bad reasoning actually occurred: who it landed on and how severe. Advisory, never a judge. It hands the room what it saw and the people in it decide what it means.
Paid, priced per use. Free to a licensed ETHOS, with the mark on it.
Look at TRACEOpens in a new window.The tools show you the pressure. The way decisions get made is what stops it working: time is preserved so urgency cannot be manufactured, a no has to arrive with an alternative so a false choice cannot stand, and disagreement is safe so belonging is never the price of agreement. Seeing it and being built against it are two halves of the same thing.
The twenty patterns and the principle come from OS Compare's file projects/os-compare/psychological-matrix.md, copied on 2026-09-25.
Two organisations run the same criteria and see where each is strong and where each is thin, so they can work out what they could do together. Results are never public and partners are never ranked. It starts with a conversation.
How BEAM worksHow a group finds the people and organisations it actually fits, rather than the ones it happened to meet. Nothing is gated and there is no invite code. One page handles both: a newcomer sees Create Your Identity, someone coming back sees Welcome Back, and anyone who lands anywhere else in the app without an identity is sent there anyway. Other tests open up once you are in.
Open MatchingOpens in a new window.A board where people put up what they can offer and what they need, and the two find each other. You do not have to be an ETHOS to be on it.
A repeatable format for a group that wants to build its own culture deliberately. People hold observation roles rather than authority roles: someone watches the room's energy, someone the timing, someone the words being used. What they notice feeds back into agreements the group makes as it goes, and the group can change the game's own rules while playing. It is a way of making culture visible enough to shape on purpose.
It does not take money, it does not sign anyone up, and it does not let anyone in. Each tool's own surface does that, on its own terms.