Educational companion dossier · Fact, interpretation, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics are labeled separately. Scope & safety
GAME MECHANIC

SIDE-BY-SIDE PERSON-FIRST REASONING

Compare people without turning difference into a score.

Place up to four authored RogueIntelligence.org characters beside one another. Compare what they need, fear, trust, protect, misread, and require for recovery—then inspect shared operations and directional relationships.

VISIBLE PEOPLE321 currently compared
GAME MECHANIC

BUILD THE VIEW

Choose two to four people.

The resulting URL is shareable. Empty slots are ignored, duplicate selections collapse to one person, and no profile or answer is stored.

Reset to core trio
Fiction-only boundary

This tool compares authored characters. It is not a template for diagnosing, ranking, recruiting, manipulating, or predicting real people.

FICTIONAL ROGUEINTELLIGENCE.ORG

PEOPLE IN VIEW

1 person compared as continuing characters.

Institutional role appears for orientation only. The human formulation remains the comparison source.

P-141

Amina Ward

Patient / Geriatric Neuropsychiatric Referral

Amina wants control over who handles her papers and who speaks for her. She takes pride in memory as a craft, not a test she must pass to deserve autonomy.

AgencyFluctuating cognitionCustodial
GAME MECHANIC

COMPARISON MATRIX

Read the same question across different lives.

Similarity does not prove alliance. Difference does not prove conflict. Each field is a narrative coordinate, not a score.

Person-first psychology dimensions for the selected fictional characters
DimensionAmina Ward
Dominant needWhat are they trying to preserve, regain, or prove?Retain authority over her records and decisions as cognition fluctuates
Self-storyWhich story makes their choices feel coherent to them?Memory is a craft I practiced, not a test I must pass to remain a person.
Core fearWhich loss threatens identity rather than convenience?Being spoken about as absent while she is still present
Reasoning styleHow do they organize evidence and ambiguity?Legacy key association and historical pattern recall
Trust strategyHow do they test, invite, limit, or repair closeness?Asks people to identify themselves and state the date before discussing records
Pressure responseWhat changes when attention and choice narrow?Misidentifies present staff through old operational templates and fills gaps with plausible narrative
Actual moral boundaryWhat remains protected even when the declared rule changes?Will disclose a fragment if she believes a chart error endangers another patient
Breaking conditionWhich combination of events can reorganize behavior?Realizing her medication record was merged with another identity
Recovery pathWhat restores choice, connection, or functioning?Medical treatment, orientation support, familiar objects, supported decision-making, and respectful repetition
Blind spotWhich truth is hardest for this person to admit or perceive?May overtrust older memory because it feels more coherent than the present
GAME MECHANIC

SHARED PATTERNS

Repeated coordinates are starting points, not conclusions.

No normalized pattern is shared by two or more selected people. That absence does not mean they have nothing in common.

FICTIONAL ROGUEINTELLIGENCE.ORG

SHARED OPERATIONS

Pressure can connect people who understand the mission differently.

No visible operation contains at least two selected people.

FICTIONAL ROGUEINTELLIGENCE.ORG

DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

One person’s trust does not establish reciprocity.

Only visible relationship records connecting the selected people appear below.

No visible directional relationship connects the current selection.