Hemelion is a diagnostic decision engine that analyzes your choices and creates your psychological profile through structured assessments.

How does Hemelion work?

Hemelion runs three specialized engines: the Scoring Engine computes your metrics deterministically, the Contradiction Engine cross-validates your answers, and the Narrative Engine generates your personalized report.

Is this just another AI chatbot?

No. Hemelion is a diagnostic engine, not a chatbot. It uses deterministic scoring algorithms to compute your metrics, then cross-validates your answers for contradictions before generating a structured report.

How much does Hemelion cost?

Each report costs $9.90. You only pay after completing the assessment. No subscription, no account required.

← Return to Interface

Signal Archives

Static examples of generated reports. This is the output format: structured, high-contrast, and actionable. No chat logs.

Protocol_01: Decision Logic

READ_ONLY_MODE

Scenario: User is deciding between taking a new high-risk role vs. a sabbatical.

Clarity

0–100

Conflict

higher = more internal conflict

Risk

higher = more downside

Confidence

78%

grounded in coverage + consistency

Recommended

Take the startup offer—not because it's safe, but because your data says you can handle it.

• Your clarity score of 74 indicates strong internal alignment—you have genuine signal, not just feelings, and your internal compass is calibrated for this decision.
• The conflict index of 38 reflects real tension between security and growth, but it's below the threshold where people get stuck—this is healthy friction, not paralysis.
• Your risk profile of 46 is elevated but appropriate for a high-upside bet—and the exit clause you mentioned is your safety lever.
• Agency friction at 32 means you feel enough control over the outcome to commit without the constant second-guessing that kills momentum.

Risks & mitigations

You use planning as avoidance disguised as preparation.

Mitigation: Put a decision deadline on the calendar within 72 hours. Pre-define what evidence would change your mind, and if none materializes, execute.

You optimize for external approval and underweight your energy constraints.

Mitigation: Before deciding, ask yourself: "Would I choose this if nobody knew?" The answer reveals your actual preference vs. your performed one.

The new role increases downside variance beyond your stated tolerance.

Mitigation: Negotiate a safety lever before committing: a ramp period, scope guardrails, or clear exit criteria that let you reverse without burning the bridge.

Next steps

1.Within 24 hours: Write a one-sentence "winning condition" for this decision—the outcome that would make you say "I'm glad I did this."
2.Within 48 hours: Define 3 data points you'll track (energy/learning/impact) and score them daily (0-10) to generate real signal.
3.Within 72 hours: Have one targeted conversation with someone who's been in a similar situation. Their pattern is your preview.
4.By Day 7: Make the decision or commit to one more iteration—open-ended deliberation is the enemy of action.

Contradictions & sensitivity

Detected contradictions

• You report low risk tolerance but strongly prioritize rapid growth—this usually creates second-guessing unless there's a safety net. The tension isn't a bug; it's a feature that needs explicit management.
• You say independence matters, yet social approval emerged as a strong driver—watch for 'invisible vetoes' where others' reactions quietly overwrite your actual preference.

What would change this result?

• If you can negotiate a reversible ramp (6-month trial, clear exit), the new role becomes the definitive top recommendation—the safety lever converts elevated risk into manageable risk.
• If your energy constraints tighten (health, family, burnout signals), staying becomes optimal despite the regret signal—self-preservation trumps growth when the baseline is threatened.

Ready to generate your own signal?

Start scan