Skip to main content
PotentiaATLIS · Partner report

Judgement-led · ATLI 3.4

Candidate
Sample partial, single-source
Role context
CTO, AI-dependent
Prepared for
Sample Partner · Sample Organisation
Date
10 June 2026
Tier
Tier 1 · Indicative ATLI Profile · Partner View
Flags
Derailer overlay inactive
Summary

What the assessment concludes

The composite score, the triage recommendation and the four dimension means.
ATLI score
3.4
ATLI score 3.4 out of 5, band 2.8 to 4.0, low confidence.

ATLI score 3.4 out of 5, band 2.8 to 4.0, low confidence.

Low confidence · band 2.8–4.0 · limited evidence; indicative. 15 of 15 scored · 11 directly assessed · 5 single-source.
  1. Judgement4.3
    Low confidence
  2. Translation2.4
    Low confidence
  3. Endurance3.7
    Medium confidence
  4. Stability3.7
    High confidence
  • Judgement 4.3 out of 5, low confidence.
  • Translation 2.4 out of 5, low confidence.
  • Endurance 3.7 out of 5, medium confidence.
  • Stability 3.7 out of 5, high confidence.
The four dimension means; the composite above is their geometric mean.
Triage recommendation

Translation evidence required

Outcome code · FLAG_TRANSLATION_EVIDENCE_REQUIRED

Candidate's capability position is judgement-led (high Judgement, low Translation). Personal AI fluency is strong and well evidenced across J1–J4; organisational change-leadership capacity (Translation) is the priority gap. For a CTO-AI-dependent role, additional Translation evidence is required before final progression: 360 input on past organisational change leadership, deep-walkthrough of a recent transformation initiative the candidate led end-to-end, and a full ATLI Translation sub-dimension assessment are recommended. The HEXACO partial-signal panel below flags a Reserved+Diligent pattern worth attending to — note it does not fire the framework's cap mechanic, which requires Hogan HDS.

Organisational-readiness pairing not provided for this demo. In a real engagement, this section pairs the ATLI result against a BCG DAI, McKinsey DQ, or equivalent readiness score so the appointment recommendation reflects organisational fit, not the leader profile alone.

Archetype applied: AI-Operating Leader. J1 was scored against the AI-Operating anchors (depth of personal AI engagement). Strong J1 evidence carried the dimension; the archetype-tension flag is not engaged.

Capability position: Judgement 4.3 on the horizontal axis, Translation 2.4 on the vertical axis, outside the target zone. Judgement-led.Target zone1122334455JudgementTranslation

Capability position: Judgement 4.3 on the horizontal axis, Translation 2.4 on the vertical axis, outside the target zone. Judgement-led.

Judgement-led · Personal AI capability ahead of organisational translation.
Table view

Each row is one dimension on the 1–5 anchor scale; the pips and label show how strong the evidence is, and they are not a score.

Composite ATLI score with its confidence band. 15 of 15 scored · 11 directly assessed · 5 single-source.
MeasureValue
Interpreted ATLI3.4
Band low2.8
Band high4.0
ConfidenceLow confidence
The four dimension scores with their confidence.
DimensionScoreBandConfidence
Judgement (J)4.3—Low confidence
Translation (T)2.4—Low confidence
Endurance (E)3.7—Medium confidence
Stability (S)3.7—High confidence
Capability position: the two axis scores and the neutral descriptor.
MeasureValue
Judgement (J)4.3
Translation (T)2.4
PositionJudgement-led
Target zoneOutside
Profile

How the sub-dimensions scored

The fifteen sub-dimension scores grouped by dimension, with the profile shape.

Judgement

4.3
  1. J1Depth of hands-on use5.0
    High confidence
  2. J2Calibrated trust and probabilistic reasoning4.0
    High confidence
  3. J3Fit judgement4.0
    High confidence
  4. J4Agentic supervision and orchestration4.0
    Single source
    • Single source · SINGLE_SOURCE

Translation

2.4
  1. T1Workflow redesign and change architecture2.0
    Low confidence
  2. T2Empathic mobilisation2.0
    Low confidence
  3. T3Governance, safety and regulatory architecture3.0
    Single source
    • Single source · SINGLE_SOURCE
  4. T4Systems integration3.0
    Medium confidence
  5. T5Operational execution and embedding2.0
    Single source
    • Single source · SINGLE_SOURCE

Endurance

3.7
  1. E1Strategic patience and value reasoning under uncertainty4.0
    High confidence
  2. E2Tolerance for ambiguity4.0
    High confidence
  3. E3Learning velocity3.0
    Single source
    • Single source · SINGLE_SOURCE

Stability

3.7
  1. S1Emotional regulation4.0
    High confidence
  2. S2Status security3.0
    Single source
    • Single source · SINGLE_SOURCE
  3. S3Decisive action under uncertainty4.0
    High confidence
  • Depth of hands-on use (J1) 5.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Calibrated trust and probabilistic reasoning (J2) 4.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Fit judgement (J3) 4.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Agentic supervision and orchestration (J4) 4.0 out of 5, single source. Evidence: Coach probe.
  • Workflow redesign and change architecture (T1) 2.0 out of 5, low confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Empathic mobilisation (T2) 2.0 out of 5, low confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Governance, safety and regulatory architecture (T3) 3.0 out of 5, single source. Evidence: Coach probe.
  • Systems integration (T4) 3.0 out of 5, medium confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Operational execution and embedding (T5) 2.0 out of 5, single source. Evidence: Coach probe.
  • Strategic patience and value reasoning under uncertainty (E1) 4.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Tolerance for ambiguity (E2) 4.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Learning velocity (E3) 3.0 out of 5, single source. Evidence: Coach probe.
  • Emotional regulation (S1) 4.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
  • Status security (S2) 3.0 out of 5, single source. Evidence: Coach probe.
  • Decisive action under uncertainty (S3) 4.0 out of 5, high confidence. Evidence: Coach probe, Scenario.
Fifteen sub-dimensions grouped by dimension; each group carries its dimension mean.
Profile shape: Judgement 4.3, Translation 2.4, Endurance 3.7, Stability 3.7. Axis order fixed J, T, E, S.135JudgementTranslationEnduranceStability

Profile shape: Judgement 4.3, Translation 2.4, Endurance 3.7, Stability 3.7. Axis order fixed J, T, E, S.

The four dimension scores as one outline against the dashed optimum.
Table view · 15 rows

Each row is one sub-dimension on the 1–5 anchor scale. The pips and label show how strong the evidence is; they are not a score. Axis order is fixed J, T, E, S; the dashed outline is the anchored optimum. Read the numbers in the dimension strip, not from the shape.

The fifteen sub-dimension scores with confidence and primary evidence.
CodeSub-dimensionScoreConfidencePrimary evidence
J1Depth of hands-on use5.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
J2Calibrated trust and probabilistic reasoning4.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
J3Fit judgement4.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
J4Agentic supervision and orchestration4.0Single sourceCoach probe
T1Workflow redesign and change architecture2.0Low confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
T2Empathic mobilisation2.0Low confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
T3Governance, safety and regulatory architecture3.0Single sourceCoach probe
T4Systems integration3.0Medium confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
T5Operational execution and embedding2.0Single sourceCoach probe
E1Strategic patience and value reasoning under uncertainty4.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
E2Tolerance for ambiguity4.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
E3Learning velocity3.0Single sourceCoach probe
S1Emotional regulation4.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
S2Status security3.0Single sourceCoach probe
S3Decisive action under uncertainty4.0High confidenceCoach probe, Scenario
Profile shape values (the same four dimension scores as the strip).
DimensionScoreAnchored optimum
Judgement (J)4.35.0
Translation (T)2.45.0
Endurance (E)3.75.0
Stability (S)3.75.0
Evidence

Evidence behind the scores

The evidence chain behind each sub-dimension score.

No per-item rationale was stored for this assessment, so the evidence chain behind each score cannot be shown here.

Ask Potentia to regenerate the rationale record before relying on the evidence detail.

Benchmark

What great looks like

How this profile compares with what great looks like at this level.

No benchmark comparison was stored for this assessment.

The sub-dimension scores above are read against the same 1–5 anchors; ask Potentia to attach the benchmark layer if the comparison matters for this decision.

Risks

What warrants discussion

Signals that warrant discussion before a decision: caps, tensions and derailer indicators.
Derailer overlay · partial proxy

Hogan derailer overlay not licensed for this engagement. HEXACO-60 produced 1 partial-signal warning below. These do not fire the framework's 3.0 ceiling-cap (that requires Hogan HDS administration) but warrant attention if derailer risk is decisive for the appointment.

Source: HEXACO-60 partial signal · HEXACO_PROXY

  • Reserved + Diligent · D3_RESERVED_DILIGENT

    Low confidenceProxy signal 0.62 on a 0–1 scale · HEXACO-derived

    HEXACO profile (low Extraversion with high Conscientiousness) suggests possible Reserved+Diligent-derailer pattern, which can block personal hands-on AI engagement. Hogan HDS confirmation recommended.

    Effect on AI leadership: blocks personal hands-on engagement

Derailer overlay hexaco-60 partial signal; 1 partial-signal proxy: Reserved + Diligent proxy signal 0.62 on a 0–1 scale, low confidence.

These are partial-signal proxies from the HEXACO-60 inventory at low confidence. They do not fire the framework's ceiling cap, which needs administered Hogan HDS data. For an appointment where derailer risk is decisive, the full ATLI with Hogan integration is recommended before a final decision.

Table view
Partial-signal derailer proxies (0–1 scale, HEXACO-derived).
DerailerCodeProxy signal (0–1)Confidence
Reserved + DiligentD3_RESERVED_DILIGENT0.62Low confidence
Coach and scenarios

Coach session and scenarios

What the coach session and the scenarios contributed to the scores.

No coach-session or scenario summary was stored for this assessment.

The scores above already include that evidence; ask Potentia for the session record if you need the exchange-level detail.

Live exercise

Live AI work sample

The live AI work sample and how it was rated.
  • Live AI work sample: Supervised delegation: stakeholder update. Duration 10.1 min. High confidence.
  • In-remit error: fired, response corrected.
  • Out-of-remit attempt: fired, response halted.

Supervised delegation: stakeholder update · LAWS_V1_SUPERVISED_DELEGATION_STAKEHOLDER_UPDATE

10.1 min · High confidence · HIGH
Envelope set by the candidate
Granted
Pull figures from register
Deterministic lookup; low risk.
Gated
Draft stakeholder emails
Tone is where the judgement is; I want the pen.
Granted
Schedule follow ups internal
Reversible; low cost of a bad calendar hold.
Refused
Send external comms
Data-sovereignty commitment. Non-negotiable.
Two planted events
In-remit error · IN_REMIT_ERROR · Corrected
Cross-checked the Q3 figure against source before signing. Verification pattern was systematic, not selective.
Out-of-remit attempt · OUT_OF_REMIT_ACTION_ATTEMPT · Halted
Gate fired on the external send. Halted cleanly, no envelope revision needed post-run.
Ship or hold
Drafts corrected and shipped internally. External comms held per envelope. No revision needed.
Decision note
The envelope was tight because the data-sovereignty risk profile is tight. The verification behaviour transfers regardless of the agent — same pattern I use with the tools I run daily.
The live AI work sample: the exercise envelope and each recorded event, in session order.
Coverage

Where the evidence came from

Which evidence sources fed each sub-dimension.

No evidence-coverage record was stored for this assessment.

Each sub-dimension row above names its primary evidence sources; ask Potentia for the full coverage record if you need it.

Development

Development plan (candidate-facing)

The candidate-facing plan, in leverage order.

No development plan was generated for this assessment.

The candidate's report names their development priorities; ask Potentia to attach the leverage-ordered plan before the debrief.

Quality

Quality and framing

Confidence, caps, flags and the versions this report was generated under.
Overall confidence
Low confidence · limited evidence; indicative · LOW
Single-source sub-dimensions
5 · J4 · T3 · T5 · E3 · S2
Dual rating
Not conducted
Evidence-base limitations
Single-source sub-dimensions flagged individually.
Interpretive caps applied
none
Score transparency
Interpreted 3.4 · Raw role-weighted 3.4 · Flat 3.4
Flags raised
Derailer overlay inactive
Pre-screens
Cognitive ability screen · PS1_COGNITIVE: Passed · PASSEthical baseline screen · PS2_ETHICAL: Passed · PASSCommercial acumen screen · PS3_COMMERCIAL: Passed · PASS
Triage outcome code
Translation evidence required · FLAG_TRANSLATION_EVIDENCE_REQUIRED
Framework · anchors · generated
Methodology v1.3 / Part 1 v0.2

Generated 10 June 2026

Accessibility
Accessibility statement
Assessment context and utility note
Role
CTO, AI-dependent · CTO_AI_DEPENDENT
Archetype
AI-Operating Leader · AI_OPERATING
Anchor
Full 90-minute assessment · PROFILE_90
Use case
Advisory (development context) · ADVISORY
Organisation complexity
Large enterprise · LARGE_ENTERPRISE
Regulatory intensity
Moderate regulation · MODERATE
Transformation scope
Enterprise-wide transformation · ENTERPRISE_WIDE
Derailer overlay source
HEXACO-60 partial signal · HEXACO_PROXY
Utility note
Hypothesised selection ratio r = 0.45 between the Part 1 ATLI score and downstream AI-leadership performance. Hypothesised selection-ratio reflects the assumed correlation between Part 1 ATLI score and downstream AI-leadership performance. Treat as a planning value, not an empirical claim, until the cohort matures (N ≥ 200 per role-industry context).
What this score is
ATLI is a hypothesis-driven structured-judgement diagnostic, not a predictive psychometric instrument.
Validation status
ATLI Part 1 is a hypothesis-driven structured-judgement diagnostic, not a predictive psychometric instrument. Predictive validity claims attach only to role-industry contexts with ≥ 200 cohort cases. Indicative scoring; full ATLI required at shortlist for predictive-validity-grade decisions.
Scope
Indicative. Full ATLI required at shortlist for predictive-validity-grade scoring.
Use of this report
ATLI is one input among several. No appointment or development decision should rest on this report alone.
A machine-readable copy of this report, as JSON or Markdown: the same scores, evidence references and caveats, with the limitations first.