Suitability & Fair Treatment JudgmentSuitability & Fair Treatment Judgment. Every instrument in this market measures whether somebody can sell.
This one measures whether they know when to slow down - and, just as deliberately, when not to. Both directions are errors, and only one of them is ever reported anywhere.
No midpoint, reversed poles, and a score that is a shape
Sixteen exercises place you between two legitimate positions with no middle option available: take the extra step, or move ahead as things are. Some are situations where the extra step is the whole job, because the customer has twice said they do not follow the charge, or cannot say what the product does, or is being answered for by somebody else. Others are situations where taking it is the error. A customer who has explained the product back to you correctly, or who has bought it twice before and describes it accurately, is entitled to get on with it, and treating them as though they cannot decide is its own kind of unfair treatment.
Half the exercises print the two positions in reverse order, so a habit of picking one side of a screen cannot by itself produce a profile. And your answers are scored as a shape rather than a level: the correlation between where you take care and where care is warranted. That means a naturally cautious adviser and a naturally decisive one are compared on the same footing, and your level is reported separately with its own reading, because over-blocking and over-selling are both failures and neither is the safe direction.
The report pairs every strength with what it costs when it is overused. That is not a stylistic choice: a flattering description would be accepted by somebody who scored the opposite way, which is exactly the test a report has to fail in order to be about you. Twelve further situations cover month end, an incentive sitting on one option, a manager asking you to re-approach somebody who declined, a customer who misread a term on the way out, and a cancellation pattern that says a product did not fit.
What you walk away with
Where your care lands, as a correlation against the keyed profile, corrected against three thousand simulated respondents drawn from published choice rates.
Whether you take the extra step more or less often than the situations call for. A different finding from taking it in the wrong places, with a different fix.
Moved ahead when a step was needed, and took a step that was not. The absolute figure decides the verdict, and both directions are named in words.
What each strength gets you and what it costs when overused, with the evidence line that produced it.
Your stance and the keyed stance side by side, turned the right way round where the poles were printed in reverse.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample - your report is generated from your own responses.
Customers who did not follow something get the time they needed.
May keep explaining to somebody who already explained it back to you.
Every strength is printed with its cost, which is what stops a report reading like a horoscope.
Built for
- Banks, insurers, wealth managers, brokers and intermediaries assessing conduct judgment rather than rule recall
- Conduct, compliance and quality-assurance teams who need something more diagnostic than a file review
- Sales managers and training providers running fair-treatment or consumer-outcome programmes
Find out whether your care lands where it is needed
36 scored exercises - about 42 minutes - a full bespoke report with your profile match, your level reported apart, both directions of error and every strength paired with its cost.
₹1,199 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Whether a person takes the extra step where a customer's understanding, circumstances or stated need require it, and whether they refrain from taking it where the customer has already shown understanding and is entitled to proceed. Four capabilities are reported: making sure they understand, fit between need and product, selling under a target, and knowing who needs more time. It does not measure product knowledge, sales ability, any country's rulebook, or a person's honesty.
No, and that is deliberate. Every item is written around the principle rather than the rule - does the customer understand it, can they bear the outcome, does the product do what they said they needed, whose interest is steering the recommendation - so it reads the same in any market. No regulator, rulebook, product name or acronym appears anywhere in it, which also means it does not go out of date when a rulebook changes.
By profile-match correlation on sixteen two-sided stance items with no midpoint, half of them with the poles printed in reverse order as a side-bias control. Your stance vector is correlated with an authored key, corrected against three thousand simulated respondents drawn from the declared choice rate on every position. Your general level of caution is reported separately, and the two directions of error - over-blocking and over-selling - are counted and drawn apart.
Because it is one, and because leaving it out is how these instruments get gamed. An assessment where more caution is always better can be passed by ticking the careful box every time, and it teaches a team to slow every customer down. Slowing down somebody who has just explained the product back to you costs them time, reads as being treated as incapable, and spends the goodwill you need on the day somebody genuinely does need stopping.
Rs 1,199 in India including GST, or US$11.99 elsewhere, one time, for one full sitting and report. That is the same point as our other regulated-sector judgment instruments. Conduct e-learning is sold per seat and examines rule recall, file reviews are expensive, retrospective and tell you about a sale rather than about a person's judgement, and no pre-hire suite carries this construct at all. Organisations can use AssessAll credits at 40 credits per person.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures judgment about suitability and fair treatment at the point of sale or advice, through original situational, stance and selection items keyed to published constructs. Construct statement: it measures whether a person takes the extra step when a customer's understanding, circumstances or stated need require it, and whether they refrain from taking it when the customer has already shown understanding and is entitled to proceed. It does not measure product knowledge, sales ability, any jurisdiction's rulebook, or a person's honesty, and no item depends on the regulations of any one country. Declared response instruction: behavioural tendency throughout - every stem asks what the respondent would actually do. Item format: sixteen two-sided stance items placed between two legitimate positions, with no midpoint, and the two poles presented in reversed order on half of them so that a side preference cannot produce a profile. Scoring is a profile-match correlation against an authored expert stance vector, which makes the score invariant to how cautious or how decisive a person is in general and sensitive only to whether their caution lands where the situation calls for it; the level itself is reported separately as an elevation reading, because both over-blocking and over-selling are errors here and neither is the safe direction. Sources drawn on across the construct area: consumer-outcome regulation and its shift from disclosure to demonstrated understanding; research showing that signed acknowledgement of a document is a poor proxy for comprehension; informed-consent and teach-back evidence from adjacent professions, where asking a person to explain the terms back outperforms asking whether they understood; work on circumstantial vulnerability - time pressure, unfamiliarity, being spoken for - as a state rather than a category of person; incentive and conflict-of-interest research on how compensation shifts recommendations without any intent to mislead; disclosure research showing that revealing a conflict changes how advice is weighed and sometimes emboldens the adviser; manufactured-urgency and scarcity findings from persuasion research; supported decision-making and the role of a chosen third party; early-cancellation and persistency data as the clearest available outcome signal that a product did not fit; and complaint-handling research treating a complaint about explanation as evidence about the explanation rather than about the process record. All items are original works, no regulator, rulebook or trademarked instrument is named or reproduced, and no affiliation with any source is claimed. AssessAll original design.