Dating Engagement Patterns Questionnaire

A sample AI Analysis

What the optional AI Analysis writes, shown exactly as it was generated for a fictional person who answered this questionnaire.

Who it is for

This fits someone who has dated enough to have a pattern, and can feel one without being able to name it. Second dates that don't happen, and no honest account of why. A sense that the same evening keeps repeating with different people, and that your own part in it is the hardest part to see. It is not a read on the people you have dated, and it will not tell you whether to keep dating or where to look. If your question is about one specific evening that already happened, this is more instrument than you need.

What you get out of it

It opens with why this matters to you and closes, ten sections later, by bringing the pieces together. In between is a description of your own habits, in terms specific enough to act on.

• A read on what you do with the other person's half of the evening: how much genuine curiosity you bring, and how much of them you are actually taking in while it happens. Two different capacities that often get confused for one.
• How much of a date is performance for you, and — separately — how guarded you are with someone new. Authenticity and performance get one section; self-disclosure and guardedness get another. Performing and withholding are different habits, and the questionnaire does not treat them as one.
• An account of how alcohol and substances figure in your dating life and what that does to your judgment there, and — separately — of how you handle the awkward stretches of an evening. Both get their own section, and neither is asked with a verdict attached.
• Red flag processing, treated as a habit of yours rather than a question about any one person you have dated — and, separately, your pacing, physical and emotional. Both are described as patterns, not scored.
• How you make decisions after a date, which gets its own section near the end — and then a closing section for synthesis, where the pattern gets named as a whole rather than a section at a time.

What’s inside

11 sections, in this order. The first is free.

1. 01Why This Matters to YouFree
2. 02Curiosity & Real Conversation
3. 03Presence & Reading the Other Person
4. 04Authenticity vs. Performance
5. 05Alcohol, Substances & Judgment
6. 06Red Flag Processing — Habitual Pattern
7. 07Physical & Emotional Pacing
8. 08Handling Discomfort & Awkwardness
9. 09Self-Disclosure & Guardedness
10. 10Post-Date Decision-Making
11. 11Bringing It All Together

How it compares

Questions people ask

Is this about me or about the people I have dated?

About you. Every section asks what you do — how you converse, what you take in, how you pace things, what you do with a caution sign. Even the section on reading the other person is a question about your attention, not a verdict on who they were. Nothing here evaluates anyone you have dated.

Why is there a whole section on alcohol?

Because judgment and drinking interact, and the questionnaire treats that as its own territory rather than folding it into general conduct on a date. One of the eleven sections is about how alcohol and substances figure in your dating life. It is asked descriptively rather than as a test — there are no wrong answers anywhere in this questionnaire, and any question can be skipped.

What does red flag processing mean here?

It means your habit, not the flag itself. The section is called "Red Flag Processing — Habitual Pattern", and the second half is the operative part: the subject is your standing pattern across the people you have dated, not an audit of any one of them. A habit is a thing you can change. Relitigating one person is not.

I have not been on many dates. Is there enough here for me?

Less than for someone with years of it — the questionnaire is looking for what repeats, and a few questions do ask you to describe a specific memory. But its ground rules are explicit that you can skip any question, that partial responses are welcome, and that one sentence is as useful as several paragraphs. With a short history you would be working from a smaller sample, not shut out of the exercise.

Will it tell me why dates keep going nowhere?

No. It describes what you do on dates. It does not explain an outcome or hand you a reason. Some of what it surfaces may be perfectly fine, and some of what goes wrong may not be about you at all. What it can do is turn a vague sense that something repeats into a specific description of the thing that repeats.

What if I already know what I do wrong on dates?

Then the specificity is the point. “Bad at dating” is not the same finding as: your curiosity is fine and your pacing is not, or what you perform and what you withhold are two separate habits with two separate fixes. Eleven sections make it hard to keep the answer general.

Can I give this questionnaire as a gift?

Yes. Sign in, open your dashboard and choose "Gift access" on this questionnaire, then enter the person's email address. They get an email with a link to claim it, and it arrives as soon as you have paid, so it is never late. Their answers are theirs: nothing they write is shown to you.

The optional AI Analysis

Answering the questionnaire is the part that does the work. The AI Analysis is what you can do afterwards: it reads the answers you wrote and gives them back to you as structured reflection notes — an overview of the whole questionnaire, then one entry for every section you answered. Your unlock includes 3, and it is genuinely optional. Nothing about the questionnaire depends on running one.

Each entry has three parts, and they are doing different jobs rather than restating each other:

What you were clear about

The things your answers state plainly, named back to you in a sentence or two. This is the part people underestimate: a lot of what you know about your relationship is already in what you wrote, and has never been said in one place.

The patterns underneath

What you do repeatedly, rather than what you did once. The same behaviour surfacing in sections you would never have put side by side; an answer near the end sitting against one from the beginning; the thing you circled several times without ever settling it. Where a questionnaire asks you to sum yourself up at the close, the analysis also reads that summary against what your earlier answers actually describe — and says so, gently, when the two do not quite meet.

A few things to sit with

Two to four short prompts. Not instructions, not advice, and not a plan — questions worth carrying into the next week, or into a conversation with someone qualified to have it.

• Each questionnaire has its own analysis prompt, written for it. The five questionnaires do not share one general-purpose instruction with the title swapped. Each has its own, built around what that instrument is actually asking and what its sections are for — so the Stay-or-Go analysis reads for the shape of a decision, and the Long-Distance one reads for whether a plan and a timeline hold up. It is the part of this that took the longest and is the hardest to copy.
• It reads your answers, not your category. What reaches the model is what you wrote, the question each answer belongs to, and the section it sits in — in the order you answered them. There is no profile, no demographics, and nothing about you beyond your own words.
• It is written as reflection notes, not as advice. Considered and unhurried — closer to notes someone made while reading your answers carefully than to anything that answers back. It does not tell you what to do, and it is not a diagnosis.
• Answer only the Core questions and you still get one. The analysis covers what you actually answered, so the shortest honest path through the questionnaire produces a real analysis rather than a thin one.
• You can change your mind. Edit your answers, resubmit, and run it again — each run costs one credit. Resubmitting answers you have not changed costs nothing.
• Your answers reach the model without your name, email address, or any identifier for your account. Anything you wrote is sent as you wrote it, so leave out names you would rather not include. Your answers are stored encrypted, and nobody is reading them alongside your identity to improve anything.
• On a Partner questionnaire you each get your own. Two people can run an analysis on the same set of answers and neither sees the other's — they are generated and stored separately.

Every analysis also carries the questionnaire's own safety note, with its resources, whether or not anything in your answers suggested it was needed. That is deliberate: a resource that only appears when something decides you need it is a resource that can fail to appear.

Guides on this