Methodology
Definitions we will not blur.
This is the public, concise form of the KeenSix definitions library. Clients receive these definitions with every brief so findings are read the way they were written. The full internal form guides the analyst workspace.
Core analytical chain
Candidate Claim → Evidence → Analysis → KeenSix Judgment
Source provenance is preserved at every step. Original evidence and original candidate wording are never overwritten; corrections append a new version of the record.
Ownership
Operating and ownership levels.
Level describes accountability for the represented work — not seniority, title, or tenure.
| Level | Name | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Exposure | Present around the work; no evidence of accountable contribution. |
| 2 | Contributor | Performed defined work under another owner. |
| 3 | Workstream Owner | Accountable for a bounded stream and its deliverables. |
| 4 | Functional Owner | Accountable for a complete function and its operating results. |
| 5 | Program Owner | Accountable across functions for an integrated program. |
| 6 | Enterprise Accountability | Final business accountability across the enterprise. |
Competing hypotheses
H1 through H6.
Every material claim is tested against all six. Multiple hypotheses can coexist until evidence discriminates among them — and sometimes evidence never does, which we state plainly.
H1
Actual Demonstrated Operator
Evidence supports that the candidate personally owned and delivered the represented work at the relevant level.
H2
Strong Contributor
The candidate materially contributed but did not hold the full ownership the claim implies.
H3
Organizational Attribution
The outcome occurred in the organization, but personal causal contribution is not established.
H4
Adjacent Transferable Capability
The exact claim is not established, but credible nearby experience may transfer to the role.
H5
Title Exceeds Scope
Title or wording implies broader accountability than the demonstrated responsibility.
H6
Material Exaggeration or Inconsistency
Material facts conflict, shift, or remain implausible after fair clarification.
Evidence
Evidence status.
- Verified
- Confirmed by primary or authoritative evidence.
- Corroborated
- Supported by independent evidence from more than one credible source.
- Candidate Claim
- Stated by the candidate; not yet independently examined.
- Plausible
- Consistent with the record, but not independently established.
- Inference
- A reasoned conclusion drawn from other findings, labeled as such.
- Inconsistent
- Details shift or do not reconcile across sources or statements.
- Contradicted
- Credible evidence conflicts with the claim as stated.
- Unknown
- Not yet examined or not resolvable with available evidence.
Sources
Source quality.
- Primary / authoritative
- Strong independent
- Credible secondary
- Weak / indirect
- Candidate-supplied / unverified
Weighting
Claim materiality.
- Critical
- High
- Medium
- Low
Confidence
Confidence bands.
Confidence is evidentiary confidence in a specific stated conclusion. It is not a probability of future job success, and it is not a candidate score.
- Very high90–100
- High75–89
- Moderate55–74
- Low30–54
- Very low0–29
Assessment
Dimensions stay separate.
There is no composite candidate score and no automatic hire / no-hire output. Each dimension is assessed and reported on its own terms, because a strength in one does not offset a gap in another.