Candidate questionnaire
Life plans, geography, career, money, faith, family expectations, politics and roles, conflict, health context, and other practical choices.
The methodology
Structured evidence for a human decision.
Naseeb asks the same core questions of every candidate, uses software to organize possible alignment, and leaves the introduction decision with a human matchmaker.
The short version: the system can surface patterns and tensions; it cannot decide whom you should marry, predict a relationship, or remove the need for your own judgment.
What enters a matchmaking review
A review begins with what people chose to submit—not public profiles, social popularity, or paid visibility.
Optional family perspective
One or two invited family respondents may answer a separate instrument. Their source answers remain matchmaker-only and never replace the adult candidate's own answers.
Current consent and readiness
Age eligibility, current consent, account access, questionnaire completion, and matchmaking activation must all be current before a profile enters active review.
From answers to a possible introduction
- 1 · NormalizeStable question keys and a versioned instrument keep answers tied to the wording a person actually saw.
- 2 · ShortlistSoftware organizes apparent compatibility, hard constraints, uncertainty, and places that deserve closer human attention.
- 3 · ReadThe matchmaker reviews the underlying context, including tensions a single score would flatten or hide.
- 4 · DecideA person decides whether there is a responsible reason to introduce. A high-looking pattern does not force an introduction.
- 5 · ExplainEach candidate receives a written rationale in finished sentences. The source answers and internal matchmaker grade are not exchanged.
What a compatibility report means
The internal review considers broad areas such as life architecture, geography, career, money, faith, family and autonomy, roles, conflict, and lifestyle. Letter bands are used internally instead of false-precision percentages. Confidence is treated separately from apparent compatibility: a sparse answer set should not look more certain than it is.
The fictional sample on the home page shows the matchmaker's working view. Candidates receive the written introduction, not an internal letter grade, family responses, or another person's questionnaire.
Broad intimacy compatibility is optional. Every intimacy question may be skipped. The broad line is off by default and appears only when both people separately enable it. It stays coarse and never reveals an answer, preference, direction, dimension, or who said what. Turning it off does not lower a grade or block an introduction.
What this methodology cannot establish
- TruthA questionnaire records what a person reports. It is not a background check and cannot verify every statement.
- PredictionCompatibility evidence cannot forecast chemistry, behavior, marriage quality, or whether two people will choose one another.
- CompletenessNo instrument captures a whole person. Context, change over time, and the conversation itself still matter.
- AuthorityThe report supports consideration; it never substitutes for adult consent, independent judgment, safety checks, or professional advice.
Does an algorithm make the match?
No. Software can shortlist and organize evidence. A human matchmaker decides whether to write an introduction.
Can someone pay for a better result?
No. A subscription activates matchmaking for one candidate. It does not alter the assessment, priority, visibility, or matchmaker's conclusion.
Are candidate answers shown to each other?
No. A candidate receives a written explanation of the introduction, not the other person's source answers.