Riedel Authenticity Metrics (& Intent Polarity Assessment)

Traditional models of intent assessment fall into two paradigms: those that treat intent as derivative of personality traits (e.g., associating high Agreeableness with benign intent) and those employing forensic linguistic analysis (e.g, lie detection via verbal inconsistencies). Crucially, neither systematically examines how communication delivery prosody, engagement dynamics, and behavioral cues reflects intent clarity. The Riedel Authenticity Metrics (RAM) framework bridges this gap by decoupling intent from personality, proposing a dynamic model where delivery patterns (e.g., "Direct Calm Quiet Listening" up against "Indirect Active Speaking Disengaged") map to a spectrum of intent polarity. This approach circumvents reductionist pitfalls like equating MBTI types with trustworthiness, while revealing how certain individuals, such as those with antisocial (Panoply of ASPD) tendencies or high g-factor/ intelligence may strategically manipulate delivery, or how neurodivergent communication styles (e.g., ADHD, Autiism related disfluencies) risk being misclassified as inauthentic despite neutral intent. RAM’s innovation lies in its personality-agnostic behavioral metric, which reframes intent assessment as a measurable function of delivery rather than static traits. As a nascent framework, RAM requires empirical validation through behavioral coding, neuroimaging, and cross-cultural studies to establish validity. If substantiated, RAM could redefine intent evaluation in clinical psychology, organizational hiring, and AI alignment, while prompting ethical debates about bias toward neurodivergent communicators. The worls validity hinges on future research. By publishing it now I hope it may catalyze that and invite scholarly critique.