Method

50 statements, each answered on a five-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. 22 load on the economic axis alone, 22 on the social axis alone, and 6 load on both at once. Each statement carries a signed weight per axis; a negative weight means agreement moves you toward the negative pole.

Your answers map to −2…+2. For each axis the raw score is the sum of your answer multiplied by that statement's weight for the axis. The raw score is divided by the axis maximum (104 for economic, 124 for social), multiplied by a gain of 0.9, and clamped to ±1. The gain exists because dividing by the theoretical maximum alone pins almost everyone near the origin — nobody answers every question at the extreme.

The weights on each axis sum to exactly zero. Someone who agrees with all 50 statements scores zero on both axes and lands in the middle cell. This is deliberate: acquiescence bias — the tendency to agree with whatever is put in front of you — is one of the best-documented artefacts in survey research, and an unbalanced instrument silently converts it into a political opinion. A continuous integration check fails the build if any weight edit breaks the balance.

Each axis is divided at ±0.33. Below the lower boundary is the first column or row, above the upper boundary is the third, and anything between is the middle. That produces nine regions. The boundaries are a presentational choice rather than a discovered threshold: someone at 0.32 and someone at 0.34 are described differently while being, in truth, nearly identical.

The gain of 0.9 was calibrated against simulated respondents, not real ones. Simulated answer patterns spread wider than human ones, so the value is likely to need raising once a real sample exists. Until that pilot is run, treat the magnitude of your score as indicative and the cell you land in as approximate — particularly if you are close to a boundary.

There are none on the grid, and there will be none until each placement has a stated method and a citable source published here. Plotting well-known figures from impression alone would be inventing data and presenting it as measurement.