Does an interface score agree with human judgment?
Interface IQ scores a screen from 0 to 100 against five questions, then names what is dragging the number down. It runs on work other people built, which is what makes it an instrument rather than a portfolio piece. What nobody has checked, including me, is whether that score agrees with human judgment.
The prediction
Instrument scores agree with pooled human ratings well above chance, and where the two disagree the disagreement is systematic and nameable rather than random.
How it works
- The instrument
CRAFT, five questions every high-stakes screen has to answer before it earns the right to show anyone data: consequence, risk, action, focus, clarity. Published as a worked method rather than a manifesto, and running as a per-screen score behind an MCP server so an agent can request it.
- What it runs on
Screens their authors built, not screens I designed. That is what makes it an instrument rather than a portfolio piece: it renders a judgment on work I had no hand in.
- What gets compared
The same screen set scored by the instrument and rated independently by human raters who never see the score.
- What gets measured
Agreement between the instrument and the pooled human rating, plus the shape of the disagreements when they happen.
What would prove me wrong
If agreement sits at or below chance, the instrument is not measuring what it claims and the result says so. If the disagreements have no describable pattern, it is not diagnostic either. Either way it gets published, including the version where my own product is the thing that is wrong.
The number
No number yet. When there is one it goes here, whether or not it says what I wanted it to say.