KWIS · Credibility Framework

Contributor
Assessment

AI-ASSISTED
INTAKE

Section 1 of 6 0% complete

Section 01 · Identity

Who are you, and in what domain do you seek to be assessed?

Claude will use your public name and domain to pre-fill contextual signals across the rest of the assessment. You'll confirm, correct, or expand each one.

Your full name

As you publish or present publicly

Professional segment

Select the category that best describes your primary area of practice

Current primary affiliation or role

Institution, company, or "Independent"

Public profile URL (optional)

LinkedIn, university page, personal site — used for AI pre-fill

Section 02 · Formal Education

Verify your formal educational background in this domain.

Claude has attempted to surface your educational credentials from public sources. Please confirm, correct, or supplement below.

Highest degree relevant to your domain

No formal degree in this domainSelf-taught, adjacent field, or general education

Undergraduate / Bachelor's degreeIn this domain or closely related

Master's degree or professional certificationMBA, MSc, MFA, or equivalent professional qualification

Doctoral degree (PhD, MD, JD, or equivalent)Research-based or professional doctorate

Post-doctoral fellowship or equivalent advanced research role

Additional relevant certifications or structured learning

List professional certifications, specialized courses, or executive programs

Are you currently engaged in ongoing formal learning in this domain?

Yes — actively enrolled in coursework, fellowship, or research

Informally — self-directed reading, conferences, workshops

No — relying on previously acquired qualifications

Section 03 · Applied Experience

The distance between knowing and doing is where credibility is forged.

This section maps your real-world practice in this domain — not credentials, but outcomes.

Years of active practice in this specific domain

Count years where this domain was central to your professional work

0 years5 years10 years15 years20+ years

5 years

Nature of your applied experience

Select all that describe your primary mode of practice

Practitioner / operatorBuilding, running, or managing within the domain

Researcher / analystProducing formal knowledge outputs — studies, reports, models

Consultant / advisorApplying domain knowledge to solve client problems

Educator / instructorTeaching this domain formally or through public content

Investor / evaluatorMaking or recommending decisions based on domain expertise

Describe your most significant real-world contribution to this domain

A project, outcome, decision, or result you can point to as evidence of your applied expertise

Section 04 · Published Record & Public Voice

The traceable, reviewable evidence of what you have contributed to the knowledge commons.

Claude has pre-searched for publications, speaking records, and digital footprint signals associated with your name and domain. Please confirm and expand below.

Peer-reviewed publications in this domain

None

1–3 publications

4–10 publications

11–30 publications

31+ publications

Books, major reports, or long-form works

None

Significant contributions (chapters, co-authored reports)

1–2 authored or co-authored books / major reports

3 or more books / major reports

Public writing and media presence

Select all that apply and are ongoing

Regular column or newsletter (500+ subscribers or editorial home)

Podcast — hosted or regularly appearing

Op-eds or essays in recognized publications

Active domain-focused blog (published within last 6 months)

Video / YouTube presence focused on this domain

None of the above

Speaking engagements in this domain (last 3 years)

None

1–3 internal or small community presentations

4–10 professional conferences or public talks

11+ talks, or regular keynote / invited speaker status

TED / TEDx, flagship industry conferences, or institutional invitation

Section 05 · Peer Recognition & Community Standing

How the field itself evaluates you — the most durable form of credibility.

Awards, honors, or fellowships in this domain

None

Local or institutional recognition

National or industry-level awards or named fellowships

International recognition or prestigious fellowships (e.g. Royal Society, MacArthur, National Academies)

Formal peer-validation roles

Select all that apply

Peer reviewer for journals or conferences in this domain

Editorial board membership

Advisory board (company, NGO, government, or institution)

Expert witness or formal consultant to regulatory body

None of the above

Social media and digital community footprint in this domain

Followers/subscribers specifically for domain-relevant content

Minimal or not active (<500)

Emerging (500–5,000)A growing, engaged niche audience

Established (5,000–50,000)Recognized voice among domain practitioners

Major (50,000+)Substantial public platform with cross-domain visibility

Section 06 · Self-Assessment & Intellectual Honesty

The questions no credential can answer — only you can.

This final section is not scored algorithmically. It informs the qualitative layer of your profile and tests the intellectual honesty that separates genuine expertise from confident performance.

What are the clear limits of your expertise within this domain?

Where does your authority end? What sub-areas or adjacent topics should readers seek other sources for?

Has a position you held publicly in this domain ever been proven wrong?

Not a trap — intellectual honesty here is itself a credibility signal

Yes — and I updated my position publicly when evidence required it

Yes — privately. I've changed views but didn't make the correction public

Possibly — the domain moves quickly and I'm uncertain about past positions

Not to my knowledge

If you had to place yourself honestly on the L1–L5 scale for this domain, where would you land?

L1 = Informed Observer · L2 = Domain Student · L3 = Practicing Expert · L4 = Field Authority · L5 = Pioneering Contributor

L1 InformedL2 StudentL3 ExpertL4 AuthorityL5 Pioneer

L2 — Domain Student

Assessment Complete

Ana Reyes

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS

What Happens Next

Human review. A KWIS validator will cross-reference your self-reported signals against public records within 5–7 business days. Any discrepancies will be flagged for your review before publication.

Peer nomination. You'll be invited to nominate 2 colleagues in your domain who can independently attest to your expertise level. Their attestations are optional but elevate your verification tier.

Profile publication. Once verified, your KWIS profile badge becomes portable and embeddable — attach it to articles, bios, presentations, and social profiles.

Perennial refresh. Your profile prompts a lightweight annual re-assessment to capture new contributions. Credibility here is a living record, not a one-time stamp.