It is interesting enough, but the report kind of feels very AI generated and generic. Most of the questions present the choices in a good vs bad way, i.e it sounds bad saying I disagree and sounds good when I say I agree. Other test usually have postive versions of both ends of the spectrum which is missing here. I also agree that there needs to be some validation of why these dimensions, how the correlated internally etc.

The dimensions seems very "profession"-oriented (as a contrast to other personality inventories that can also be used in professional psychology).

Questions:

1. Where did the 12 dimensions come from?

2. Are they ~independent (ie. don't have huge correlations making them redundant)?

3. Are they high-entropy? (ie. they split the population into roughly equal-sized groups and have predictive value)

>the next step is to combine Archetype 360 with a variation of Holland Codes / RIASEC (vocational interest areas)

Shouldn't the next step be actual validation (which looks nothing like asking people what they think about the reports)?

Without validation, it's just a nice-sounding horoscope.