Diagnostic foundation, questionnaire design, and theoretical references underpinning the P-SAP™ instrument.
The P-SAP™ framework and its six core diagnostic markers were developed through the original doctoral research of Praga Ramiah, founder of the Pragadian Model of Human Synergy. The six markers represent structurally necessary conditions for individual operational health. They were defined as independent, non-overlapping constructs prior to any data collection and are not adapted from existing instruments nor derived statistically from a population sample.
The foundational research underpinning the framework is publicly available through Zenodo and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), providing an independently verifiable academic record of the model's theoretical origins.
The P-SAP™ assessment consists of 24 questions structured around three distinct input types. Each input type captures a different layer of the individual's operational state. By combining these three sources for each marker, the instrument is able to evaluate both what a person believes about their own performance and what their actual behavioural patterns indicate.
| Input Type | What It Captures |
|---|---|
| Attitudinal Input | The individual's direct self-assessment of how they experience a particular dimension of their working life. This reflects perceived state. |
| Behavioural Proxy Input | Questions anchored to observable actions and concrete behavioural patterns rather than feelings or opinions. This reflects demonstrated state. |
| Structural Anchor | A fixed reference point derived from established principles in cognitive science and biology. This provides a theoretically grounded baseline against which the other two sources are evaluated. |
The table below identifies the theoretical frameworks referenced in the design of P-SAP™ and clarifies the role each plays. A distinction is made between frameworks directly applied in the instrument design and those that serve as supporting theoretical parallels.
| Theory or Framework | Role | How It Applies |
|---|---|---|
| Pragadian Model of Human Synergy (Ramiah, doctoral research) |
Source | Origin of all six markers, typology architecture, scoring framework, and cascade logic. |
| Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety (1956) | Applied | Informs the SVCI design. A diagnostic system must generate sufficient complexity to match human defensive reporting. |
| Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) | Applied | Informs the Motivational Integrity marker. Intrinsic motivation is an internal construct that requires a distinct measurement approach. |
| Second Law of Thermodynamics | Applied | Informs the highest-risk SWI classification. Full capacity depletion combined with feedback collapse is treated as maximum systemic entropy. |
| Shannon Information Theory (1948) | Applied | Informs mid-range SWI classification. Signal degradation in feedback channels is modelled as information entropy within the working system. |
| Goodhart's Law (1975) | Applied | Informs Masked Effect detection. High output alongside depleted internal markers signals a decoupling of performance from genuine system health. |
| Job Embeddedness Theory (Mitchell et al., 2001) | Applied | Informs lower-risk SWI classification. Functional presence with structurally fragile connectivity. |
| Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance (1957) | Parallel | Supports interpretation of divergence between attitudinal and behavioural signals as a structural indicator of internal tension. |
| Beer's Viable System Model (1972) | Parallel | Philosophical alignment in treating individuals as self-regulating systems. Not the source of the marker architecture. |
| Bifurcation Theory | Parallel | Supports the rationale for diagnostic thresholds as structural tipping points rather than arbitrary percentage boundaries. |
Each of the six diagnostic markers is a computed construct built from the three input types described above. The process of combining these sources is called SVCI triangulation. The construction approach for each marker is determined by the theoretical nature of that construct.
| Marker | What It Measures | How It Is Constructed |
|---|---|---|
| MFTMinimum Functioning Threshold | Baseline operational capacity and mental energy | Triangulated from attitudinal self-report and behavioural proxy signals. Capacity is an internal experience that also manifests in observable patterns, so both sources carry diagnostic weight. |
| HHumanistic | Quality of interpersonal trust and relational safety | Triangulated from felt psychological safety and observable relational behaviours. The gap between these two sources is often diagnostically significant. |
| CCognitive | Clarity of success criteria and cognitive load | Triangulated from perceived clarity and behavioural indicators such as rework frequency and decision patterns. Cognitive load expresses itself behaviourally even when not consciously acknowledged. |
| MMotivational | Motivational integrity and intrinsic drive | The construction of this marker reflects the theoretical nature of intrinsic motivation as defined by Self-Determination Theory, an internal state not fully visible through observable behaviour alone. |
| BBehavioural | Behavioural output and execution consistency | The construction of this marker reflects that execution consistency is evaluated through observable output rather than self-perception. It measures what is demonstrated rather than what is felt. |
| SFSignal Fidelity | Structural integrity of feedback loops | Triangulated from perceived feedback quality and behavioural indicators of whether feedback is actually influencing action. Signal Fidelity captures both the presence and the functional value of information channels. |
Three composite indices are derived from the six marker scores. Each evaluates a distinct dimension of the individual's structural state.
| Index | What It Evaluates | How It Is Derived |
|---|---|---|
| SVCI Semantic Validity and Coherence Index |
Whether the individual's self-perception is consistent with their behavioural reality across all six markers | For each marker, the system detects the degree of divergence between what an individual reports and what their behavioural signals indicate. Where divergence is material, the system treats it as a structural finding rather than discarding either source. The validated score for each marker reflects this reconciliation. |
| SWI Systemic Withdrawal Index |
The depth and nature of systemic withdrawal across five progressively critical structural states | The SWI evaluates the combination and configuration of marker states to classify the individual into one of five tiers, each grounded in a distinct scientific framework calibrated to the nature of systemic pressure at that level. Tier boundaries represent structural tipping points, not score bands. |
| Quit Probability Index | The cumulative intensity of structural pressure on the individual's system relative to the maximum the instrument is designed to measure | The index produces a single composite output on a bounded scale by aggregating independently derived structural pressure readings. The descriptor is the primary output. The numeric score indicates the individual's position within that band. |
P-SAP™ is a criterion-referenced instrument designed to help users reflect on work patterns and system strain. It evaluates each individual's structural state against a theoretically grounded viability threshold rather than against an external population sample. What matters is whether the individual's system is operating above or below its structural viability boundary. Comparing individuals to a population sample would introduce demographic and contextual variables that are irrelevant to the diagnostic question. Full methodological documentation is available at pragadian.com. The report is intended for improvement and development, not solely for clinical or employment decisions.