The level of work complexity someone can operate at, and how far ahead they can think.
MIRA uses non-verbal pattern matrices, read through Elliott Jaques' Stratified Systems Theory, to place someone on a level of work complexity without language, numeracy or industry knowledge getting in the way.
Each item shows a pattern with a piece missing, and the candidate chooses the piece that completes it. Because no language or numerical knowledge is needed, the result reflects reasoning capacity rather than education or first language. The report places the candidate on one of five levels, each tied to the time-span of decisions people typically work with, and can be matched to the complexity of a specific role.
Every MIRA result resolves to one of these, with a potential indicator one step above it.
Immediate to 3 months. Frontline contributor, Operator, Assistant.
3 to 12 months. Supervisor, Coordinator, Senior Administrator.
1 to 2 years. Manager, Department Manager, Operations Manager.
2 to 5 years. Chief Financial Officer, Client Services Director, Financial Director.
5 to 10 years. Chief Executive Officer, Group Executive, Enterprise Strategy Executive.
How MIRA reads reasoning capacity
A short, timed sequence of matrices that get harder as the candidate progresses. The score maps to a level of role complexity, not to a personality label.
Timed, non-verbal matrices
- Section A has 13 items and Section B has 11. Difficulty rises through each section, and a completed section cannot be reopened.
- Nothing in the items depends on reading level, vocabulary or numerical knowledge.
Current level and potential
- The percentage score resolves to one of five Stratified Systems Theory levels, with a potential indicator one step above it (except at the top level).
- Each level is described by the time-span of decisions people at that level work with, and by the kind of role that typically sits there. The potential level is developmental evidence, not a promise of promotion.
Matched to the role, not read in isolation
- A role benchmark level sets what complexity the job actually needs. MIRA is then read against it: a match, a stretch, or a risk of under-stimulation.
- The same score means different things for different roles, and the report says so.
Why it is useful, and where it stops
The important distinction is not only what the assessment is called. It is what kind of evidence it collects and how that evidence can be explained.
Fit runs in both directions
- Most cognitive tests only ask whether someone is smart enough. MIRA also flags when a role is likely to be too simple for the person, which is a retention and engagement risk.
- Each fit result is written up separately for the client and, in plainer wording, for the candidate.
One evidence source, not the verdict
- Reasoning capacity is one input. In Edge it sits beside behavioural, situational and observed evidence and is never blended into a single opaque score.
- Reports frame the result as development-use evidence and tell the reader what it cannot show.
What MIRA reports
A compact, decision-ready result rather than a page of raw scores.
Result
Interpretation
See MIRA in a real evidence walkthrough.
Tell us a little about what you're trying to solve and we'll come back with a walkthrough of the evidence model, the adaptive engines, and the reports it produces.
Demo walkthrough
See the candidate journey, assessment modules and reporting flow.
Pilot planning
Map the right assessments to roles, levels and decision points.