Multi-signal behavioral analysis across 14 dimensions. Condescension, bad faith, weaponized incompetence, chronic negativity — all covered.
You already know something is wrong. You've known for a while. But gut feelings are hard to act on — they're easy to dismiss, easy to second-guess, and easy for other people to wave away. "Oh, Dave's just like that." "Karen's under a lot of pressure." "You're being too sensitive."
Smart Detection doesn't replace your gut. It gives it a paper trail.
The detection system tracks behavioral signals across 14 weighted dimensions, grouped into three categories:
Unsolicited corrections. Explaining things you didn't ask to have explained. "Well, actually…" as a personality trait. The pattern here isn't any single incident — it's density. One correction is help. Twenty corrections in a week is a dynamic.
Warmth toward people with power over them; contempt or indifference toward those without. The classic tell: watch how they treat a waiter, a junior employee, or a stranger asking for directions. That's who they actually are.
Holding others to standards they don't apply to themselves. Punctuality, tone, effort, accountability — different rules for different people, and they're always on the favorable side of the gap.
Misrepresenting your position. Strawmanning. Moving the goalposts. The argument is never actually resolvable because they're not engaging with what you said — they're engaging with a version of it that's easier to win against.
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. You raise a concern; they end up being the wronged party and you end up apologizing. This is the highest-confidence signal in the system after pattern persistence — it's almost never situational.
Minor friction becomes major conflict. Every disagreement is disproportionately big. This is exhausting to be around and toxic to groups — it chills honest communication because people learn that speaking up costs too much.
Strategic helplessness. Mysteriously unable to do things that would cost them effort, credit, or accountability — but perfectly capable when the benefit flows to them. This is one of the hardest patterns to call out because it can always be explained as genuine inability.
Claiming others' work, omitting contributors, rewriting history after the fact. In meetings, in write-ups, to management. Subtle forms include: saying "we" when presenting others' work alone, or simply never naming who actually did something.
Repeated failure to follow through — without acknowledgment. Everyone misses deadlines sometimes. The signal is the absence of accountability when they do. No apology, no heads-up, no explanation. It just didn't happen.
Ignoring clearly stated limits. Re-asking after a clear no. Treating your "no" as a negotiating position, or simply not registering it at all. High weight because this rarely improves without direct intervention.
Consistent pessimism and complaint-heavy communication without any constructive follow-through. Griping is human. Griping as a lifestyle — with no interest in actually improving anything — is corrosive over time.
"Sorry you feel that way." "I'm sorry, but…" The non-apology apology. Low weight individually, but as a pattern it's a strong indicator that accountability is not actually on the table — they've learned the words without the meaning.
Subjective exhaustion reported after interactions. Lowest weight because it's the most personal — some people are just incompatible. But consistently, universally draining interactions are a signal worth tracking. Your nervous system usually knows before your conscious mind does.
The most predictive signal in the system. Recurrence of the same behaviors after they've been raised, addressed, or acknowledged. If they know and they continue anyway, you have your answer. This is why history matters more than any single incident.
Detection is passive. The system doesn't intercept communications, monitor devices, or require any instrumentation on the subject's end. You log what you observe. The algorithm scores it. This keeps the process honest — you're not surveilling anyone, you're documenting your own experience.
It also means the detection is bounded by what you can see. If someone's behavior toward you is fine but their behavior toward others isn't, you'll need input from those people to capture it. That's a feature, not a bug. The system measures your environment, not an objective moral score.
Signals are windowed over a rolling 72-hour period by default. Older signals carry less weight. This is intentional — a bad week three months ago shouldn't define someone permanently. The system is interested in current patterns, not historical grievances.
The exception is pattern persistence: that dimension explicitly looks at whether the same behaviors have recurred over a longer history. You can't game it with a good week.