How the 0–100 scale works
All eight NeuroFrame parameters are expressed as percentiles on a 0–100 scale. The number does not describe an absolute "level of quality"; it shows where a person sits relative to a reference base of comparable profiles — executives and entrepreneurs from 500+ companies, 20+ industries and 25+ functional areas. A learnability score of 70 means the person sits above 70% of that group, and nothing more. Interpretation here is always normative: there is no absolute scale of how much learnability is enough.
The number in itself is neither good nor bad. It becomes one or the other only when applied to a specific role and a specific stage of the company's lifecycle. We do not sort people into the suitable and the unsuitable: a low value is not a defect in the person but a signal that they may need support in this particular position, and that in a different role they might be both happier and more effective. A high value is no reward either — a quality the role has no use for tends to get in the way rather than help.
Two practical consequences follow. First, a parameter is almost never read on its own: the neighbouring values change what it means. Second, the bands below are a reference point, not a verdict. A gap on one or two parameters is something to explore at interview rather than treat as grounds for rejection, and the final decision always rests with the employer.
The bands
- 80–100
Above 80 — a quality that demands an outlet
The quality is so pronounced that the person constantly needs work in which to use it. Behind this level sits a large reserve of internal energy that has to go somewhere: it comes with stronger emotions and noticeable tension. If the quality finds no outlet in the job, the person will either start seeking out and inventing suitable tasks, or the unspent energy will surface indirectly — as irritation, boredom or friction with colleagues. Towards the very top of the band, the quality can also begin to work against its owner.
- 60–80
60–80 — a dependable resource
The quality is firmly expressed, visible to others and readily available: the person applies it naturally, often and regularly. At the same time, there is no constant need to run it at full power. It is a resource they draw on, not an inner compulsion.
- 40–60
40–60 — the working middle
A mid-range value. The quality is not among the person's strongest suits, but it is available when needed. It tends to work thoroughly rather than quickly, and leans on other, stronger qualities. Tellingly, for people in management roles most scales usually land in exactly this band: managing calls for an even, balanced profile rather than for running a single quality at its limit.
- 20–40
20–40 — below average, works with support
A below-average value. The quality is associated neither with high speed nor with intensive daily use. The person can bring it up to full strength only for short spells and at considerable effort — this is most visible in those whose persistence and conscientiousness are strongly expressed. In everyday work they will need external support: a mentor, a manager, a supportive environment or additional motivation.
- 0–20
Below 20 — not one of the person's strengths
This quality is not among the person's strengths, and it is not realistic to expect it to develop on its own under pressure. If the role genuinely requires it at a high level, the honest approach is to plan lasting support in advance — a partner, a well-run process, a mentor — or to look at a role where the person's actual strengths carry more of the load. A single low value describes work behaviour within a specific frame, not the person as a whole: it is a prompt for a conversation at interview, and the decision always rests with the employer.
Common questions
What does a score of 85 mean?
85 is a percentile, not a percentage of correct answers: the person sits above 85% of comparable profiles in the reference base. That places the score in the top band of the scale, where the quality is pronounced enough to need constant application. Whether this is an advantage is not fixed in the number itself — meaning appears only when the score is set against a specific role and the company's stage of development.
How should percentiles be read?
A percentile shows where a person sits relative to a reference base of comparable profiles — executives and entrepreneurs from hundreds of companies across dozens of industries. A score of 60 means the person is above 60% of that group; it does not mean 60% of a task was completed correctly. Interpretation is always normative: the scale is not absolute, and the same value reads differently for different roles.
What does a score above 90 mean?
A result this high is not always an unambiguous advantage: sometimes the quality starts to work against its owner. The person grows impatient with anyone slower, finds it hard to hand work over, and small frictions in the team become almost inevitable. A particular case is when risk appetite and conscientiousness both land in the very top zone: boldness and the urge to control everything pull directly against each other, and the internal tension is greater than it looks. Such situations are worth discussing openly.
What does a score below 20 mean?
This quality is not among the person's strengths, and expecting it to develop by itself under pressure is unrealistic. If the role really does require it at a high level, the honest approach is to arrange lasting support in advance — a partner, a well-run process, a mentor — or to look for a role where the person's strengths carry more of the load. One low parameter describes work behaviour in a specific frame, not the whole person, and the decision remains the employer's.
How do the parameters affect one another?
A parameter is not read on its own: the same score means different things depending on the values around it. The clearest effect is catalytic — strong progress monitoring lifts the practical return on mental efficiency and learnability through accuracy, self-control and timely correction. In practice, a profile with moderate mental efficiency and strong progress monitoring more often produces a steady result than the reverse combination. These links are observations drawn from practice and research — a reason to look closer, not a calculation.
Which combinations of parameters deserve attention?
Three combinations deserve attention. First, a high appetite for risk alongside lower mental efficiency and progress monitoring: the consequences of bold decisions are not fully weighed. Second, high risk appetite and high conscientiousness together, without persistence to steady them: boldness and control pull in opposite directions, internal tension rises and focus slips. Third, an extreme value on any parameter, where a strength begins to obstruct its owner. These are prompts for a conversation, not diagnoses.
What does a high risk appetite mean when mental efficiency is modest?
Risk appetite comes into its own alongside strong persistence and openness, but how safely it plays out for the business depends on mental efficiency and progress monitoring. Where those two are well developed, risk becomes a constructive force: bold moves rest on analysis and on thinking consequences through. Where they are weaker, consequences are not fully weighed — the answer is analytical back-up, or a lower-risk colleague alongside. For leadership and entrepreneurial roles this is one of the key rules.
How should teamwork be read in a manager's profile?
On its own, teamwork says little about whether someone will make a good leader: in the Judge et al. (2002) meta-analysis, agreeableness was the weakest of the five traits at ρ = 0.08 (corrected correlation), and the link did not replicate consistently across samples. One caveat matters: that is a finding about questionnaire-measured agreeableness. Our parameter carries the same name, and that is precisely why the caveat is needed: our value is read from observed behaviour rather than from a self-report, and the constructs have not been shown to be equivalent. It is therefore read as a description of style, not as a filter. High teamwork with strong monitoring and cognition gives leadership through engagement; a moderate level paired with conscientiousness gives leadership through the task. The question is not which style is better, but what the company needs at this stage.
The ranges are a reference point, not a verdict: a gap on one or two parameters is something to explore at interview, not grounds for rejection.