Six dials, 0 to 100. Alignment (does everyone share the goal, the milestones and the expectations), trust (how safe it is to say hard things in this team), buffer (slack between now and the deadline), credit (how clear roles and authorship are), energy (yours), and loop (how quickly you find out when something is off). Each option moves some of them; the reveal shows which.

Problems. Each problem in the field manual has triggers: choices that raise its odds and choices that lower them. At its month the game rolls against those odds; a problem that would have fired at high odds but did not, because of something you did, is logged as prevented. A few problems can fire at low odds whatever you do, because some cannot be avoided, only handled.

Outcome. Submitted on time needs buffer above zero and enough progress; the quality of the paper follows progress and loop; team health follows trust and alignment; sustainability follows energy. The verdict weighs the submission (30 points), then quality, team health, your energy and credit clarity, so a paper shipped over a broken team or an empty tank does not read as a success.

Profile. Each option carries a lean on one of five spectra; the profile counts where your picks sat. Neither pole is the goal.

Subjective. Which option is sound is one researcher's judgment, grounded in the readings in the field manual. The reveal always gives the reason.