AQAL Competency Map
AQAL Competency Map
This map defines measurable competencies for all quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types. Use it as the canonical design reference for pathway, assessment, and analytics decisions.
Status: Draft — awaiting SME validation (see SME Review Gate).
How to Read This Map
- Competencies are organized by AQAL dimension.
- Each competency domain includes level-by-level progression indicators, observable behaviors, and evidence signals.
- Evidence signals are listed as both qualitative and quantitative where applicable.
- Levels are progression bands, not rigid identity labels. Learners may operate at different levels across different domains.
- States and types modulate how competencies are expressed; they do not change the core competency structure.
Developmental Levels (Platform Working Model)
| Code | Name | Characteristic Capacity |
|---|---|---|
L1 | Foundational | Basic awareness; can name concepts and comply with guidance in familiar contexts |
L2 | Differentiated | Distinguishes and applies concepts independently in familiar and moderately novel contexts |
L3 | Integrative | Coordinates multiple perspectives, methods, and constraints simultaneously |
L4 | Transformative | Adapts the system, teaches others, and generates novel protocols across complex contexts |
These levels map to conventional developmental terminology as follows:
| Platform Level | Developmental Analogy | Spiral Dynamics Rough Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Preconventional → Conventional entry | Red → Amber |
| L2 | Conventional → Post-conventional entry | Amber → Orange |
| L3 | Post-conventional | Orange → Green |
| L4 | Integral and beyond | Teal → Turquoise |
Quadrant Competency Domains
Quadrant I — Interior-Individual: Self-Awareness and Regulation
Domain statement: The capacity to observe, name, and constructively work with one's own internal states, emotions, values, and developmental edges.
Progression Indicators
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Names present internal state using basic emotion vocabulary | Identifies broad emotion categories (happy, sad, anxious, angry) in real time; uses a provided vocabulary list without prompting; reports state before and after a practice session |
| L2 | Uses regulation tools in routine and moderately stressful contexts | Selects and applies at least two distinct regulation strategies (e.g., breath, labeling, body scan) without coaching; describes why the chosen tool fits the context; shows measurable reduction in self-reported distress within a session |
| L3 | Chooses state-shifting practice contextually and adapts when the first approach fails | Articulates which quadrant, line, or state dimension is most activated; switches strategies mid-session when the first approach is ineffective; integrates insight about recurring patterns into a personal practice plan |
| L4 | Designs and teaches state-aware practice for others | Creates individualized practice sequences for peers or students; incorporates contraindications; documents protocol rationale; evaluates outcomes and adjusts the protocol based on evidence |
Evidence Signals
| Level | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence | Assessment Cues / Artifacts | Real-Context Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Reflection journal entries name at least 3 distinct emotion states per week | Emotion vocabulary breadth: ≥ 5 distinct terms over 4 entries | Self-report check-in form; facilitator observation checklist | Learner writes "I noticed anxiety in my chest before the meeting" |
| L2 | Reflection describes strategy selection rationale; post-practice entries show before/after contrast | Self-reported distress rating decreases ≥ 2 points (1–10 scale) within session; regulation tool use logged ≥ 3 times per week | Practice log with timestamps; audio/video of practice session reviewed by facilitator | Learner selects box breathing before a high-stakes conversation and logs the outcome |
| L3 | Personal practice plan references multiple AQAL dimensions; learner describes pivots in strategy during session | Practice adherence ≥ 80% over 4-week window; at least 2 documented strategy pivots per month | Written practice plan reviewed against protocol template; facilitator debrief notes | Learner identifies somatic tension as "It" quadrant signal, shifts to body-scan practice, then integrates insight in a "We" conversation |
| L4 | Peer or student outcomes traceable to learner-designed protocol | Protocol adoption rate among peers ≥ 60%; at least one measurable outcome improvement in mentee self-reports | Protocol document; peer outcome log; presentation or workshop facilitation recording | Learner designs a 4-week mindfulness onboarding sequence for a team and documents team-level wellbeing changes |
Quadrant We — Interior-Collective: Perspective-Taking and Dialogue
Domain statement: The capacity to recognize, engage with, and integrate multiple subjective viewpoints within a shared cultural space.
Progression Indicators
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Identifies at least two valid perspectives on a shared topic | Restates another person's view accurately without evaluation; acknowledges that more than one perspective can be legitimate; paraphrases positions before disagreeing |
| L2 | Engages in respectful disagreement and collaborative inquiry | Asks clarifying questions before countering; maintains a non-defensive posture during disagreement; distinguishes between a person's position and their underlying interests |
| L3 | Synthesizes opposing views into a hybrid or integrating position | Produces a written or verbal synthesis that both parties recognize as fair; identifies shared values beneath surface disagreement; facilitates a dialogue that moves from debate to inquiry |
| L4 | Facilitates plural dialogue with measurable learning or relational gains | Designs and runs structured dialogue processes; measures participant perspective shift pre/post; manages group-level dynamics including power and silence |
Evidence Signals
| Level | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence | Assessment Cues / Artifacts | Real-Context Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Forum posts paraphrase peer positions accurately before responding | Paraphrase accuracy rated ≥ 3/4 by a peer reviewer | Forum post analysis; peer paraphrase review rubric | Learner restates a peer's argument about systems thinking before offering a counter-view |
| L2 | Dialogue transcripts show clarifying questions and interest-exploration moves | ≥ 2 clarifying questions per dialogue; zero ad-hominem markers in coded transcript | Dialogue transcript coded for discourse quality; facilitator checklist | Learner asks "What outcome matters most to you here?" before disagreeing in a team decision meeting |
| L3 | Synthesis document integrates at least three perspectives with explicit common-ground identification | Peer ratings of synthesis quality ≥ 4/5; both "sides" of a dialogue rate the synthesis as fair | Written synthesis reviewed against integration rubric; dialogue recording | Learner facilitates a team discussion on values conflict and produces a written integration that all parties endorse |
| L4 | Post-dialogue surveys show measurable perspective shift among participants | Mean perspective shift score ≥ 1.5 SD from baseline; facilitator rubric score ≥ 85% | Facilitator evaluation rubric; pre/post perspective survey; group learning artifact | Learner co-designs a structured dialogue protocol for a cross-cultural cohort and evaluates its effectiveness over three sessions |
Quadrant It — Exterior-Individual: Skillful Behavior and Execution
Domain statement: The capacity to perform specific, observable, repeatable behaviors with increasing independence, precision, and adaptability.
Progression Indicators
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Performs a defined behavior with guidance | Follows a step-by-step protocol when prompted; completes a behavioral task under direct supervision or with a written checklist; identifies errors when pointed out |
| L2 | Performs independently in stable, familiar scenarios | Executes the behavior without prompting; self-corrects minor errors in real time; explains the rationale for each step |
| L3 | Adapts behavior under novel constraints or competing demands | Modifies the behavioral protocol when conditions change; manages two competing behavioral demands simultaneously; documents adaptations for future reference |
| L4 | Designs repeatable behavioral protocols and trains others | Writes a behavioral protocol from first principles; identifies failure modes and builds in safeguards; trains at least one other person to L2 proficiency |
Evidence Signals
| Level | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence | Assessment Cues / Artifacts | Real-Context Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Checklist completion with facilitator signature | Task completion rate ≥ 80% with guidance; error rate ≤ 30% on first attempt | Observed performance checklist; skill demonstration rubric | Learner completes a structured listening exercise following the provided protocol step-by-step |
| L2 | Self-correction log documents error recognition and repair | Independent task completion rate ≥ 90%; error rate ≤ 10% across three consecutive attempts | Video-recorded performance review; timed skill assessment | Learner conducts a focused listening session without a checklist and self-corrects a pace error mid-session |
| L3 | Adaptation memo documents constraint and chosen workaround | Successful completion rate under constraint conditions ≥ 75%; adaptation documented for ≥ 2 distinct constraint types | Adaptation memo; observed performance under scenario variation | Learner adapts a feedback conversation protocol when the receiver becomes emotionally activated, documenting the pivots taken |
| L4 | Peer trainer evaluation confirms trainee achieved L2 | Trainee reaches L2 proficiency within 4 sessions; protocol document passes peer review for clarity and safety | Protocol document; trainer observation of trainee session; trainee performance data | Learner writes a 5-step deep listening protocol and trains a colleague to independent competency, evaluated by facilitator observation |
Quadrant Its — Exterior-Collective: Systems Literacy and Intervention
Domain statement: The capacity to understand, map, and intervene in the structural and institutional systems that shape collective behavior and outcomes.
Progression Indicators
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Identifies system components, roles, and basic relationships | Names the key actors, structures, and flows in a given system; identifies at least one feedback dynamic; describes how their role fits within the system |
| L2 | Maps feedback loops, delays, and reinforcing/balancing dynamics | Produces a causal loop diagram for a familiar system; distinguishes reinforcing from balancing loops; predicts likely system behavior given a perturbation |
| L3 | Designs leverage-point interventions informed by system structure | Selects a leverage point with explicit rationale; designs an intervention that addresses a structural driver, not a symptom; anticipates unintended consequences |
| L4 | Evaluates system interventions with outcome data and revises protocols | Defines leading and lagging indicators before implementing; collects and analyzes outcome data; revises intervention based on evidence and communicates findings to stakeholders |
Evidence Signals
| Level | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence | Assessment Cues / Artifacts | Real-Context Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | System description identifies ≥ 3 components and at least one feedback dynamic | Accuracy rated ≥ 3/4 on a structured rubric by two independent reviewers | System description memo; facilitated review session | Learner maps the feedback loop between team morale, communication quality, and project outcomes in a written memo |
| L2 | Causal loop diagram uses correct notation and distinguishes loop types | Diagram includes ≥ 2 feedback loops; notation accuracy ≥ 85% rated by reviewer | Causal loop diagram with legend; written behavior-over-time description | Learner draws a reinforcing loop of trust → communication → trust in a team setting and predicts what happens when trust breaks |
| L3 | Intervention design document names leverage point, rationale, and anticipated side effects | Leverage point rating ≥ 3/5 on Meadows hierarchy; at least 2 unintended consequences identified | Intervention design memo reviewed against template; peer critique session | Learner proposes changing information flows (Meadows level 6) in an organization's reporting structure to shift decision-making quality |
| L4 | Evaluation report includes pre/post data and revised protocol | Statistical or descriptive evidence of ≥ 1 measurable outcome change; revised protocol documented | Evaluation report; stakeholder presentation; revised intervention protocol | Learner implements a team communication protocol, tracks error rates and morale scores over 8 weeks, and presents a data-informed revision |
Lines of Development
Each line of development is relatively independent. A learner may be at L3 on cognitive and L1 on somatic. Curriculum design should address the relevant lines explicitly.
Cognitive Line
Competency statement: Uses evidence and reasoning appropriate to the complexity of the task.
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Identifies a relevant source and states a claim it supports | Names a source type; extracts a main claim; distinguishes fact from opinion at a basic level | Reading log with source and claim identification | ≥ 70% accuracy on a source-evaluation quiz |
| L2 | Evaluates source quality and distinguishes correlation from causation | Applies an evidence-quality checklist; identifies at least one methodological weakness in a given source; avoids causal claims from observational data | Source critique memo using platform checklist | Source critique rated ≥ 3/4 on evidence-quality rubric |
| L3 | Integrates evidence across sources and constructs a reasoned argument | Synthesizes ≥ 3 sources into a coherent argument; acknowledges counter-evidence; labels claim strength appropriately (tentative, probable, established) | Argumentative essay or reasoning memo | Argument quality rated ≥ 4/5 on a structured reasoning rubric |
| L4 | Designs evidence protocols and teaches critical reasoning skills to others | Writes a domain-specific evidence-vetting checklist; facilitates a reasoning calibration session; documents reasoning norms for a team or community | Evidence protocol document; calibration session facilitation recording | Peer application of protocol rated ≥ 80% fidelity |
Emotional Line
Competency statement: Differentiates emotional states with precision and regulates them constructively.
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Names broad emotional categories in self and others | Identifies at least 4 basic emotion categories; uses an emotion wheel when prompted; distinguishes emotional from non-emotional states | Emotion check-in log | Vocabulary breadth: ≥ 5 distinct emotion terms per week |
| L2 | Uses specific emotional vocabulary and identifies somatic correlates | Uses the emotion wheel without prompting; names a body sensation paired with the emotion; distinguishes similar emotions (e.g., frustration vs. disappointment) | Emotional granularity journal | Granularity score ≥ 3.5/5 on structured emotion-description rubric |
| L3 | Identifies emotion triggers, appraisals, and chooses regulation strategy | Traces the appraisal chain from event → interpretation → emotion; selects a regulation strategy based on emotion type and context; adjusts strategy when initial approach is insufficient | Emotion-regulation practice log | Strategy effectiveness rated ≥ 3/4 across ≥ 3 distinct emotion events |
| L4 | Teaches emotional granularity and co-regulates with others | Facilitates an emotion-vocabulary exercise; recognizes and names group-level emotional dynamics; documents co-regulation moves | Facilitation recording; group emotional climate report | Participant granularity scores improve ≥ 0.5 points post-session |
Evidence Signals — Emotional Line
| Level | Assessment Cues / Artifacts | Real-Context Example | Module Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Emotion check-in log with timestamps; facilitator observation of vocabulary use during debrief | "After a tense meeting, I wrote in my log: 'frustrated, anxious, relieved.' Three distinct words — last month I would have just written 'stressed.'" | Emotional Line Overview; Emotional Granularity |
| L2 | Completed emotion wheel with body-sensation mapping; granularity journal entries showing distinction between similar emotions | "My partner asked how I was feeling and instead of 'fine' I said: 'disappointed about the project delay, but also relieved that the deadline was extended.' I named the mixed state and the body sensation — tight shoulders for disappointment, released exhale for relief." | Emotional Granularity; Affect Labelling & Somatic Correlation |
| L3 | Emotion-regulation practice log with appraisal chain traces; documented strategy pivots | "I noticed I was irritated with a colleague. I traced it: event (they missed a deadline) → interpretation ('they don't respect my time') → emotion (anger). I caught the interpretation before acting on the anger and asked them what happened — they were dealing with a family emergency. The strategy shift from confrontation to curiosity prevented an unnecessary conflict." | Emotion Regulation Foundations; Emotional Appraisal & Meaning-Making |
| L4 | Facilitation recording with co-regulation moves annotated; group emotional climate report; participant pre/post granularity scores | "I ran a 30-minute emotion-vocabulary workshop for my team. Before: average 4.2 emotion terms used. After: 6.1. One participant told me afterward: 'I didn't realize how much I was flattening my experience until I had more words.'" | Emotional Intelligence & Somatic Line; Emotional–Interpersonal Integration |
Moral Line
Competency statement: Makes transparent value tradeoffs with awareness of stakeholder impact.
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Identifies a personal value and states it explicitly | Names at least 2 personal values; identifies when a decision conflicts with those values; defers to rules or authority in ambiguous situations | Values clarification worksheet | Completion of ≥ 2 values-identification exercises |
| L2 | Recognizes value conflicts and reasons about tradeoffs explicitly | States the values in tension in a given dilemma; identifies whose interests are affected; chooses a position and explains the tradeoff made | Ethical dilemma memo using structured template | Dilemma analysis rated ≥ 3/4 on a reasoning rubric |
| L3 | Integrates competing values and stakeholder perspectives into a principled position | Considers ≥ 3 stakeholder groups; names systemic forces shaping the dilemma; produces a position that acknowledges legitimate competing claims | Ethics case analysis | Case analysis rated ≥ 4/5; stakeholder perspectives identified without prompting |
| L4 | Facilitates ethical deliberation and designs value-alignment processes | Runs a structured ethical deliberation session; produces a value-alignment protocol for a team or organization; documents the deliberation process for replication | Facilitation recording; value-alignment protocol document | Team ethical alignment score improves ≥ 1 point post-session |
Interpersonal Line
Competency statement: Collaborates productively across differences in perspective, background, and role.
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Participates in structured collaborative tasks without disrupting group function | Completes a defined role in a group task; listens without interrupting; acknowledges a peer's contribution | Peer observation checklist | Peer rating ≥ 3/5 on collaboration dimensions |
| L2 | Navigates moderate disagreement and adapts communication style to the audience | Adjusts vocabulary and register for a non-expert audience; de-escalates minor conflict with a verbal strategy; follows up to repair a misunderstanding | Dialogue recording; conflict repair log | Peer satisfaction rating ≥ 4/5 post-interaction |
| L3 | Builds trust across significant difference (role, culture, worldview) | Facilitates a cross-difference conversation that results in mutual understanding; names and works with power dynamics explicitly; documents relationship history and repair | Cross-difference dialogue report | Pre/post trust rating improves ≥ 1.5 points (1–7 scale) |
| L4 | Designs collaboration structures and coaches teams through relational complexity | Writes a team collaboration protocol; trains peers in conflict-navigation skills; evaluates team health metrics over time | Protocol document; team health dashboard; coaching log | Team collaboration score improves ≥ 15% over 6 weeks |
Evidence Signals — Interpersonal Line
| Level | Assessment Cues / Artifacts | Real-Context Example | Module Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Peer observation checklist with specific behavioral markers; self-report on listening and participation | "During our group project, I made sure to let each person finish their point before I spoke. Afterward, a teammate said they felt heard — they had never said that to me before." | Interpersonal Line Overview |
| L2 | Dialogue recording with conflict repair annotations; peer satisfaction rating; communication adaptation log | "A colleague and I disagreed about the project direction. Instead of escalating or avoiding, I said: 'Let me make sure I understand your concern before I respond.' I restated their position, and they confirmed I had it right. We then found a middle path neither of us had seen initially." | Relational Repair & Conflict Navigation; Perspective-Taking & Empathic Accuracy |
| L3 | Cross-difference dialogue report with power-dynamic annotations; pre/post trust survey; documented repair sequence | "I facilitated a conversation between two team members from different cultural backgrounds who had been avoiding each other for weeks. I named the avoidance pattern explicitly, acknowledged the power differential, and helped each person articulate what they needed to feel safe in the conversation. They agreed to a follow-up check-in, and both reported reduced tension afterward." | Cross-Difference Dialogue & Trust-Building; Co-Regulation & Relational Attunement |
| L4 | Team collaboration protocol document; peer coaching log; team health dashboard with 6-week trend data | "I designed a conflict-navigation protocol for our cross-functional team. After 6 weeks: team satisfaction scores improved 18%, meeting interruptions decreased, and one previously silent team member began contributing regularly. A peer I trained is now running the protocol independently." | Multiperspectival Leadership in Action; Emotional–Interpersonal Integration |
Somatic Line
Competency statement: Uses body-based practices to support attention, resilience, and integrated action.
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Identifies body sensations associated with common emotional or cognitive states | Names at least 2 body locations paired with a specific state (e.g., "tightness in chest when anxious"); follows a guided body-scan practice | Body-sensation log | Sensation vocabulary: ≥ 4 distinct body locations named per week |
| L2 | Uses a somatic practice independently to shift physiological state | Completes a breath or body-based regulation practice without guidance; reports before/after physiological state; identifies which practice works best for which state | Independent practice log | Self-reported arousal shift ≥ 2 points (1–10 scale) after practice |
| L3 | Integrates somatic awareness into cognitive and interpersonal tasks | Uses body signals as real-time feedback during a conversation or decision; names when a somatic signal contradicts a cognitive appraisal; adjusts behavior based on the somatic signal | Integrated practice reflection | Somatic-integration episodes logged ≥ 3 times per week |
| L4 | Teaches somatic practices and designs body-informed protocols | Leads a somatic practice session for a group; designs a body-informed protocol (e.g., body check-in before team meetings); evaluates participant somatic awareness change | Facilitation recording; protocol document | Participant somatic vocabulary breadth increases ≥ 30% post-session |
Worked Examples and Evidence: (Per CONT-05 and SOM-01 evidence discipline.)
| Level | Worked Example | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | "Last week during a tense meeting, I noticed my jaw was clenched and my shoulders were up near my ears. I could not name what I was feeling yet — just that my body was tight. I wrote 'tension in jaw and shoulders' in my log." | Tier B — Body awareness as prerequisite for emotional differentiation (Garfinkel & Critchley, 2017); interoceptive accuracy is trainable with repeated practice |
| L2 | "Before a difficult conversation with my brother, I did two minutes of slow breathing. My heart was still racing when we started, but I noticed the difference — I was activated but not overwhelmed. Afterward I logged: 'Breathing shifted me from 7/10 to 4/10. Better than last time I tried nothing.'" | Tier B — Autonomic regulation through breath practices (Porges, 2011; but note PVT's specific neuroanatomical claims are contested — see SOM-01); self-regulation is a trainable skill |
| L3 | "During a job interview, I felt a knot in my stomach when they asked about my last role. My mind said 'answer confidently.' My body said 'this question is about something you are still processing.' I paused for a breath and chose to answer honestly rather than perform confidence. The somatic signal was more accurate than my cognitive appraisal." | Tier A — Interoceptive accuracy correlates with decision quality under uncertainty (Farb et al., 2015); somatic signals as valid information source |
| L4 | "I designed a 3-minute body check-in for our team: feet on floor, one breath, name one sensation. After six weeks of doing this before standups, three team members independently told me they had started using it at home. One said: 'I did not realise how much tension I was carrying until I had a structured way to notice it.'" | Tier B — Clinical/practitioner evidence for body-informed protocols (Ogden et al., 2006); teaching somatic skills to others consolidates own competence |
Spiritual/Meaning Line
Competency statement: Articulates a coherent meaning framework that integrates multiple worldviews without dogmatism.
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Qualitative Evidence | Quantitative Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Identifies personal sources of meaning and connects them to behavior | Names at least 2 sources of meaning; describes how a value or belief shapes a decision; distinguishes a personal meaning claim from a universal truth claim | Meaning-mapping exercise | Completion of meaning-map with ≥ 2 sources and 1 behavior connection |
| L2 | Engages with worldviews different from their own without dismissal | Accurately summarizes a meaning framework different from their own (e.g., secular, spiritual, traditional, post-modern); identifies shared functional elements across worldviews | Cross-worldview reflection essay | Accuracy rated ≥ 3/4 by a reviewer unfamiliar with the learner's worldview |
| L3 | Integrates insights from multiple meaning frameworks into a personal synthesis | Produces a meaning statement that draws explicitly on ≥ 2 distinct frameworks; identifies where frameworks are in tension and how they are held together; updates the synthesis after a significant life event or learning | Developmental meaning-synthesis reflection | Synthesis depth rated ≥ 4/5 on integration rubric |
| L4 | Facilitates meaning-making in others without imposing a framework | Runs a structured meaning-exploration session; distinguishes own meaning from participant meaning; documents facilitation moves that protect participant autonomy | Facilitation recording; participant self-report on autonomy | Participant autonomy rating ≥ 4/5; facilitator does not impose own framework (rated by observer) |
States Competency Framework
States are temporary experiences of consciousness. Competencies in this dimension concern the capacity to access, stabilize, and integrate state experiences safely and skillfully.
Focused Attention (Gross/Waking State Optimization)
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Evidence Signals | Safety Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Sustains attention on a single task for a defined window | Completes a 5-minute focused practice without shifting to another task; reports attention quality pre/post | Practice log; self-rated attention quality | Avoid practice durations > 10 min at L1; include rest breaks |
| L2 | Recovers attention after distraction without distress | Detects mind-wandering within ≤ 30 seconds; gently redirects without self-criticism; completes a 15-minute session | Distraction-recovery log; session completion rate | Monitor for frustration; provide encouragement cues |
| L3 | Selects attention practice by context and performance goal | Chooses between focused and open practices based on task demands; sustains ≥ 20-minute sessions; uses attention quality as a performance feedback signal | Practice-selection rationale log; performance task score pre/post | Allow flexibility; do not enforce a single technique |
| L4 | Trains others in focused-attention practice and designs personalized protocols | Runs a group attention-training session; individualizes duration and technique; evaluates participant outcomes | Facilitation recording; participant attention improvement data | Include contraindication screening for trauma or dissociation |
Open Monitoring (Metacognitive Awareness)
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Evidence Signals | Safety Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Observes own thoughts and emotions without immediate reaction | Notices a thought arising and labels it as "thought" without acting on it; stays in a brief observation practice (3–5 min) without stopping early | Observation log; guided practice completion | Include stop rules and grounding language; avoid open-ended sessions at L1 |
| L2 | Identifies recurring patterns and triggers over time | Names at least 2 recurring thought-emotion patterns across ≥ 3 observation sessions; links patterns to behavioral tendencies | Pattern-identification journal | Review for avoidance or rumination patterns; escalate if distress persists > 2 weeks |
| L3 | Integrates pattern insight into behavior-change plans | Produces a behavior-change micro-plan based on observed pattern; reviews plan at 1-week and 1-month intervals | Behavior-change plan with review dates | Monitor for over-intellectualization; emphasize somatic anchoring |
| L4 | Facilitates open-monitoring practice for groups and adapts for diverse needs | Runs a non-directive observation session; debrief surfaces shared patterns while protecting individual privacy; adjusts pacing for group needs | Facilitation recording; group debrief quality | Mandatory contraindication screening before facilitating group practice (Tier 2 protocol applies) |
Compassion and Prosocial States
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Evidence Signals | Safety Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Generates prosocial intent in low-stakes contexts | Completes a loving-kindness practice directed at a neutral person; identifies a situation where a compassionate response is possible | Practice log; self-report of compassion-activation | Monitor for forced positivity or toxic positivity; validate difficulty |
| L2 | Applies empathic understanding in active disagreement | Accurately names the emotion and need behind a peer's opposing view before responding; sustains a compassionate posture under mild provocation | Dialogue recording coded for empathic moves | Monitor for emotional depletion; include recovery practices |
| L3 | Facilitates constructive repair in interpersonal conflict | Leads a structured repair conversation that results in mutual acknowledgment; documents the repair process for future reference | Repair conversation recording; participant-rated outcome | Include debrief support; escalate unresolved conflict to qualified facilitator |
| L4 | Designs compassion-training curricula and evaluates effectiveness | Creates a multi-session compassion training; measures prosocial behavior change pre/post; publishes findings or revises protocol based on evidence | Curriculum document; pre/post prosocial behavior data | Mandatory safety review before deploying with emotionally vulnerable populations |
Contemplative Depth (Subtle and Causal States)
| Level | Progression Indicator | Observable Behaviors | Evidence Signals | Safety Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Follows a guided stillness or visualization practice safely and reports the experience | Completes a 10-minute guided session without leaving early; provides a descriptive account of the experience | Practice log; experience description | Include grounding close; screen for dissociative tendencies; keep sessions short at L1 |
| L2 | Reports meaningful insight with integration notes | Writes a post-session integration note connecting the experience to daily life; revisits the note at 24h and 72h | Integration journal with retrieval dates | Monitor for destabilization; require 48h check-in after first significant insight |
| L3 | Applies insight to ethical or systemic action | Describes a specific behavior change or ethical decision traceable to a contemplative insight; discusses with a peer or mentor | Insight-to-action log; peer or mentor debrief notes | Tier 2 safety protocol required; human review of significant state experiences |
| L4 | Guides others through contemplative practice with appropriate qualification and safety controls | Holds space for a group contemplative session; recognizes and responds to signs of distress; debriefs safely and refers when needed | Facilitation recording; participant check-in data; referral log | This level is [HUMAN-REQUIRED] — facilitators must meet the qualification standard in safety/shadowwork-safety-standard.md |
How States and Types Influence Observable Behaviors
State Influence
State training modulates the baseline competency level accessible to the learner in a given moment:
- Dysregulated state (high activation, low coherence): Learners typically access L1 behaviors even when L3 competency has been trained. Assessment during dysregulation underestimates stable capacity.
- Regulated state (moderate activation, coherent attention): Learner expresses trained competency level. This is the target condition for summative assessment.
- Expanded state (contemplative, insight-active): Learners may temporarily access L4-quality reflection without stable L4 capacity. Insights from these states require integration before they constitute durable competency.
Design implication: Include a brief state-check and regulation moment before any high-stakes assessment event. Flag assessments taken in known dysregulated conditions for review.
Type Influence
Types are stable styles that cut across levels and states. They shape how competencies are expressed and how evidence should be interpreted:
| Type Dimension | How Competency Appears | Assessment Design Adaptation |
|---|---|---|
| Introversion-Extraversion | Introverts may show higher-quality competency in written reflection; extraverts in dialogue and group work | Offer both solo and social evidence formats; avoid weighting one mode exclusively |
| Structure-Seeking vs. Exploratory | Structure-seekers perform best with clear rubrics and defined steps; exploratory learners may underperform on rigid tasks but show creative integration | Provide rubrics upfront; allow structured OR emergent demonstration formats for L3+ outcomes |
| Analytical vs. Relational Preference | Analytical learners produce stronger evidence-evaluation artifacts; relational learners produce stronger interpersonal and compassion artifacts | Pair both formats in competency evidence requirements; do not reduce overall competency claim to one mode |
| Time-Constrained Professionals | May demonstrate L3 competency in micro-sessions but under-complete longer practice requirements | Allow micro-format completion paths with equivalent rigor; adjust duration thresholds; require outcome evidence not just time-on-task |
Design implication: No single evidence format should be the sole basis for a competency judgment. Provide at least two demonstration modalities per domain (written + performance, or solo + social).
Competency-to-Assessment Mapping
| Competency Level | Preferred Assessment Type | Minimum Evidence Requirement | Review Process |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Knowledge check, guided task observation | Completion + accuracy ≥ 70% | Automated or peer-check |
| L2 | Independent performance task, structured reflection | Rubric score ≥ 3/4 + practice log | Peer or facilitator review |
| L3 | Complex scenario application, synthesis product | Rubric score ≥ 4/5 + integration artifact | Facilitator review + blind peer calibration |
| L4 | Teaching or protocol design + trainee/participant outcome data | Rubric ≥ 85% + measurable outcome in others | SME or senior facilitator review |
Cross-Cutting Assessment Principles
- Use performance-based assessments for L2+ outcomes; knowledge checks alone are insufficient.
- Use retrieval checks (24h, 72h, 7d) for concept durability across all levels.
- Tie rubric criteria explicitly to AQAL dimensions (quadrant, level, line, state, type).
- Grade high-judgment work (L3, L4) with blind-review and at least two independent assessors.
- Flag and review all assessments completed during known dysregulated states.
Minimum Metadata Required for New Modules
Every new module published under this platform must include the following in its YAML front matter and documentation:
- Primary AQAL tags:
quadrant,level,lines,states,types - Target competency statements (one per major learning objective)
- Performance evidence expected (linked to this map's levels)
- Retrieval schedule design (24h, 72h, 7d)
- Safety tier classification (Tier 1, 2, or 3) and associated notes
- Accessibility compliance notes (WCAG 2.2)
SME Review Gate
[HUMAN-REQUIRED]
The following sections of this map require validation by subject-matter experts with domain expertise in developmental theory, integral psychology, and evidence-based instructional design before the map is considered finalized. Update the Status column from Pending to Approved when each review is complete. Once all items are Approved, remove the [HUMAN-REQUIRED] tag and update the document status to Validated.
| Review Item | Required Reviewer | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Developmental level progression indicators (L1–L4) align with established developmental theory (Piaget, Kegan, Loevinger, Wilber) | Developmental psychologist or integral theorist | Pending |
| Emotional and somatic line indicators align with evidence-based affective science | Affective scientist or licensed clinician | Pending |
| Interpersonal line indicators and evidence signals align with developmental and social psychology research on perspective-taking, conflict, and dialogue | Developmental psychologist or social psychologist | Pending |
| Moral line indicators align with moral psychology literature (Kohlberg, Gilligan, Haidt) | Ethics or moral psychology specialist | Pending |
| States competency indicators are consistent with contemplative science research | Contemplative science researcher or senior practitioner | Pending |
| Type adaptation rules do not introduce bias or stereotype harm | Diversity, equity, and inclusion reviewer | Pending |
| Safety notes and escalation requirements meet professional standard of care | Licensed mental health clinician | Pending |
| Evidence signal thresholds (quantitative benchmarks) are empirically defensible | Assessment and measurement specialist | Pending |
| SME validation complete | All reviewers above | Pending |
Once all review items are marked Approved, remove the [HUMAN-REQUIRED] tag from this section and update the document status to Validated.
Acceptance Gate for Publication
A module is launch-ready only if it passes all checks:
- Competencies clearly mapped to all five AQAL dimensions (quadrant, level, line, state, type).
- Level assigned to each competency with progression indicators visible.
- Assessment evidence aligns with competency claims and this map's evidence signal standards.
- Retrieval and spacing loop is present (24h, 72h, 7d).
- States and types influence noted where relevant.
- Accessibility and safety notes are complete.
- SME Review Gate items applicable to the module's content are cleared.