Whether what a person says and what they do line up, and whether that holds when life gets hard.
Two things do that work here, and they are not the same thing. The Procedural Faith Index™ measures. The Arlucent Seventh Dimension™ interprets. Used together they answer a question the standard framework was never built to ask.
Most substance use evaluations in the United States are built on the ASAM Criteria, which are very good at one job: judging how serious a situation is, what the risks are, and what level of care a person needs.
But those measures were not built to check whether a person’s stated intentions and their actual behavior match, or whether that match survives pressure. That is the gap these two frameworks fill. Neither replaces the ASAM framework. They add to it.
People conflate these, so it is worth separating them before going further.
The Procedural Faith Index™ (PFI) is the measurement. It scores four areas against a fixed scale and identifies a named pattern. It produces numbers and a finding.
The Arlucent Seventh Dimension™ is the interpretation. It reads the meaning underneath: what a person actually believes, how they reason about right and wrong, what they have forgiven and what they have not, and how those things organize behavior. It produces understanding, not a score.
Neither sits above the other. They answer different questions, and which of them appears in a report depends on the evaluation you commission.
Four areas. Each is scored from 1 to 5, in whole numbers, against a fixed set of named anchors. The anchors are published below rather than held back, because a score you cannot interrogate is a score you should not trust.
Value Identification — whether the person can identify and articulate what they actually value.
1 Absent · 2 Aspirational · 3 Functional Recognition · 4 Integrated · 5 Internalized
Behavioral Consistency — whether their behavior over time has actually matched those values.
1 Erratic · 2 Inconsistent · 3 Moderately Stable · 4 Consistent ·
5 Highly Consistent
Stress Fidelity — whether that match-up holds up when the person is under pressure or stress.
1 Collapses · 2 Fragile · 3 Partial · 4 Resilient · 5 Robust
Recovery Alignment — whether they have built supports around themselves, therapy, recovery community, sponsor, family, that reinforce behavior aligned with their values.
1 Disengaged · 2 Partially Engaged · 3 Functionally Engaged ·
4 Strongly Aligned · 5 Integrated
Every score carries a notation showing what evidence it rests on. A score marked MX draws on at least two independent kinds of evidence pointing the same way: what the evaluator directly observed, what the person reported, what collateral sources said, and what the records show. A score resting on only one of those is marked as such, and is read as bounded by that single source.
The report says which on its face, for every domain.
The scores are also presented as a radial chart: the four domains drawn as a four-sided shape, so the profile’s strengths and vulnerabilities are visible at a glance. The table and the chart carry the same data in two forms.
Scores tell you what is happening. They do not tell you why, and in the situations this practice is built for, why is usually the question.
The Arlucent Seventh Dimension™ is the interpretive layer. It reads the meaning structures underneath behavior through three lenses: faith, forgiveness, and values. Not faith in a religious sense necessarily, but what a person actually trusts and relies on. Not forgiveness as sentiment, but what has been resolved and what is still being carried. And values as they operate in practice, rather than as stated.
It is qualitative. There is no number. What it produces is a structured account of how a person reasons about right and wrong, what they hold themselves accountable to, and how those things organize what they do. That account is what makes the scores mean something.
The Seventh Dimension™ appears in two depths. A preliminary layer, included in the Clinical Assessment, looks at four things in the person’s own words: their accountability language, their value conflicts, their attempts at relational repair, and their moral self-evaluation. The full synthesis, included in the Comprehensive Assessment, is the complete Faith, Forgiveness, and Values integration.
One evaluation is a photograph. Sometimes the question needs a film.
Where a situation calls for it, the Procedural Faith Index™ can be administered as a series rather than once: a baseline, then repeat administrations at intervals, typically 30, 90, and 180 days and one year. The result is a Trajectory Report, which shows not just where a person stands but which direction they are moving and what moved them.
That changes what the report can answer. A single administration can tell you that coherence is fragile. A series can tell you it was fragile at intake, held through a housing disruption at day 90, and consolidated by month six. Those are different findings, and only one of them survives the objection that a person had a good day.
Trajectory work is available for both the standard Procedural Faith Index™ and its re-entry deployment. It suits any situation where a decision depends on whether change is holding rather than whether it started: supervision reviews, return-to-practice decisions, monitoring programs, and grant-funded outcome reporting.
What is included depends on what you commission.
The Seventh Dimension™ matters most when the real question is whether a person’s stated values and their actual behavior line up. That comes up often in evaluations requested for court, for professional licensing, and in any situation where the gap between what someone intends and what they do is the heart of the matter.
It does not predict future behavior, it does not pass moral judgment, and it does not produce a diagnosis on its own, apart from the full evaluation it comes from.
The Procedural Faith Index™ is a structured way of reasoning, not a psychological test. It is not norm-referenced. It is currently undergoing formal psychometric validation through ongoing doctoral research, and it has not yet been through peer-reviewed validity and reliability studies. Neither framework produces a diagnosis on its own, apart from the full evaluation it comes from.
What the instrument’s value rests on today is the transparency of its scoring anchors, published above, and the convergence of evidence behind each score, rather than peer-reviewed psychometric properties. If you are a reviewer for whom peer-reviewed standardization is a threshold requirement, weigh the report accordingly. We would rather say that here than have you discover it later.
Their findings describe what can be observed during the assessment. They are not predictions of future behavior.
Which assessment you need, and how much of the Seventh Dimension™ it includes, is decided after intake review, based on the question you need answered, how complex it is, and what the evaluation is for.
Appointments are private-pay and confirmed once payment is received.
Arlucent Assessments · Independent Evaluation
Minnesota
© 2026 Arlucent Assessments™. All rights reserved. A division of Arlucent.
Arlucent Assessments provides independent clinical evaluation services only and does not provide therapy, treatment, clinical care, advocacy, referrals, or ongoing professional services.
Inquiries are handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality and privacy standards.