4 Degrees of Testing

Orientation

Compatibility is not about identity between two parties, which is impossible, but about the emergence of a relationship-fit that permits living and working comfortably in the presence of individual differences.

The first step is to clarify whether or not a relationship is viable at all, and this calls for employing tests to determine the presence of •meaning, •worth, •safety and •continuity in the relationship as it currently functions.

Remember: The function of testing is to judge whether there is sufficient compatibility to make furthering the relationship worthwhile.

The difficulty in testing is that powerful inner urges, wishes and fears, distort or disrupt sensible assessment. For relationships to work, denial of relevant realities must be recognized and overcome.

CG4¹: Situational Diagnosis

Focus: Bonding.

There must be a bond for any relation to be meaningful and invite compatibility. That bond must be vitalized and emotionally significant. If the relationship is purely transactional or contractual, it does not matter who the other party is as long as the deal is done. If no personal relationship actually exists, then compatibility is irrelevant.

Function:  To be explicit about the state of the relationship.

Structure: CL1-CL4

The primary assessment of any relationship is a diagnosis of its current state. To enable this the g4-narrative element must be realistic. The diagnosis must also include a plausible g1-explanation of current interactions and be based on a recognizable g2-framework or typology of relationships to make the diagnosis coherent: e.g. is it sociable, companionable, charitable, intimate, businesslike, criminal or abusive. Finally, the diagnosis must respectfully look beneath superficialities and public behaviours to g3-interpret underlying feelings, motives, doubts and fears.

Denial:

Refusing to be explicit and regarding vagueness as useful.
Taking the bond for granted, especially if feelings seem lacking.

Situationship The term emerged in the late 2000's as dating apps became popular and people needed a word for an undefined romantic or sexual relationship where there is an emotional connection but an uncertain future. Exclusivity is often lacking, contact may be irregular and life integration is limited. Note that situationship is itself an explicit diagnosis of the situation. 

CG4²: Common Ground

Focus: Affinity.

Given the presence of an emotional bond, there is an issue of whether you and the other party are actually drawn to each other. When values and outlooks are shared, then there can be a commonality that goes to the heart of social functioning.

The bond makes the relationship meaningful, and now affinity makes the relationship worthwhile.

Function:  To confirm sufficient sharing of values and outlooks.

Structure: CL2 - CL5

Common ground requires you to be realistic about your own values and outlooks which are your guiding light and remain your g4-responsibility. The common ground must be articulated respectfully as a g3-narrative to handle inevitable small differences of view and other sensitivities that are invariably present. Any g2-interpretation of the situation or the position of others needs to be coherently integrated. Finally, g1-frameworks used in describing the common ground must be plausible.

Denial:

Claiming similarity that is stretched or wishful.
Mimicking or simulating enthusiasms to win interest and acceptance.

CG4³: Tolerable Inequality

Focus: Power.

Although a relationship may be meaningful and worthwhile, there can be inequalities in factors like intelligence, money or status that imply a power discrepancy. For a good fit, there should be neither excessive deference nor attitudes of superiority. Inequalities need not matter if sensibly handled, but they can generate stress and, at the extreme, affect a necessary sense of safety.

So common ground (CG4²) is what you share, and tolerable inequality (CG4³) is the disparity you can live with.

Power-centred behaviour is something else because it imposes an emotional inequality. If the other party is not naturally submissive, the atmosphere gets spoiled and willingness sabotaged, often leading to destruction of the relationship.

Function:  To adapt to differences in power without undue stress.

Structure: CL3-CL6

The presence of a power inequality is established through a coherent g2-narrative. Some factors in that narrative depend on plausible g1-interpretations of personalities and events. Tolerating inequality starts from a realistic view of the g4-legitimacy of the attributes of both parties, because this limits coercion and exploitation. Given that legitimacy, you have a g3-responsibility to respect differences and enable adaptations.

Denial:

Claiming an equality that cannot exist in practice.
Denying that a power imbalance matters.
Tolerating the intolerable.

CG4⁴: Likely Prospect

Focus: Change

If the future is a concern, then the relationship currently exists as sufficiently meaningful (given the bond), worthwhile (given the affinity) and safe (given the inequality). But will this condition persist? Organisations change. People and their aspirations change. Circumstances and external demands change. Initial differences, for example in hobbies or goals, may lead to divergent life paths so that the parties end up growing apart.

So the final important test is an assessment of the continuity of a relationship.

Function:  To consider how the fit may fare over time.

Structure: CL4-CL7

The g4-context potentially includes everything that surrounds the relationship including the nature of the parties. Because not everything will be relevant, being realistic and imaginative can be challenging. Although the future is unknown, a plausible g1-narrative must be developed and g2-responsibly made coherent in terms of your values and outlook. Finally, distortion by hope and fear can be limited by respect for the g3-authority provided by precedents, track records and experience, your own and others that you trust.

Denial:

Just assuming continuity.
Imagining something that will never be.

---

Summary Table

CG4	Testing	Function	Focus of Concern	Cumulation	Denial
4	Likely Prospect	To consider how the fit may fare over time.	Change Can it last?	Continuity assumes worth, meaningfulness and safety.	Just assuming continuity. Fantasy-based imaginings.
3	Tolerable Inequality	To adapt to differences in power without undue stress.	Power Is it safe?	Assumes worth and meaningfulness.	Claiming equality as a right. Denying power matters.
2	Common Ground	To confirm sufficient sharing of values and outlooks.	Affinity Is it worthwhile?	Assumes meaningfulness.	Claiming similarity. Mimicking interests.
1	Situational Diagnosis	To be explicit about the state of the relationship.	Bonding Is it meaningful?	Clarifies the existence of a relationship.	Being vague. Taking a bond for granted.

Transition

The clarification of social compatibility has reached the point at which assessments of fit (CG4) confirm that efforts to engage (CG3) have led to the formation of a viable relationship—viable in the sense of being meaningful, worthwhile, safe and potentially lasting.

Once a relationship has been tested in this way and a fit has been confirmed, it becomes possible to focus more directly on compatibility. The minimum need for a compatible relationship is explicit ownership. You must regard the relation as yours and feel that you truly belong there.

Belonging like this implies that you can identify fully with the relationship, and this can be checked by adding a fifth level to form G5-pentads.

---

• Continue to Check Identification (CG5-Pentads).

Originally posted: 6-Oct-2026.