DEC-001 — Trait valuation: assets and liabilities, not strengths and weaknesses
Principle
Traits are neutral. Their value is set by the situation they meet. A low Interpersonal is an asset for solo research and a liability for team facilitation. A high Entertaining is an asset on stage and a liability in close-protection work.
Calling a trait a "strength" or "weakness" smuggles in a context-free judgment that the framework rejects. The framework's question is never is this trait good? — it is always what does the situation call for, and how does this trait answer?
Why
This entry is downstream of three claims:
- CLM-L021 — Natures are situational, not absolute. A trait's value is conditional on situational demand.
- CLM-L022 — Capacity (MI) and sustainability (MN) are different questions; "strength" collapses them.
- CLM-L025 — The combinatorial profile space has no preferred direction; high vs. low is meaningful only against a situation.
Common slip
SWOT-style framing (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is the most common vehicle for this slip in business writing. Watch for it in:
- résumé and bio language ("my strengths include…")
- coaching frameworks
- self-help workbook prompts ("name three weaknesses")
- corporate review templates
Reformulate as situation-relative: what is this trait an asset for, what is it a liability against?
Edge case
In casual onboarding or first-touch contexts, "you'll find some things easy and others harder" works without invoking the asset/liability vocabulary. Situational reading without jargon. The rule is strict for defining descriptions and diagnostic prose; lighter for plain-language conversation.
See also
- RULE-G01 — Natures are not predicates of identity (related grammatical rule).
- CAP-001 — Capitalization of Natures and Intelligences.
- CLM-L021 — Authority for the situational stance.