The NexProfile is one of the two tools on the Counseling Desk — you open it from the right of the tab strip, read what you need, and go back to the board. It has four parts, top to bottom: where the results came from, a written interpretation, the career fields worth exploring, and the raw charts.
Where the results came from
A small grey line above everything: Based on NexReach™ · 4.8.2026, or NexRise™ for the youth instrument.
Check it before anything else. A profile from two years ago describes who somebody was two years ago, and the instrument tells you whether the questions were written for their age group at all.
The written interpretation
Three summary cards, then a Counselor Summary table covering the main pattern, what it means in practice, best-fit environments, work model, fields worth exploring, cautions and tensions, and a suggested question to ask.
This text is generated by AI. That is worth saying plainly, because nothing on the screen says so. It reads like computed findings and it is not — it is a model writing prose about computed findings.
What the model is given is deliberately narrow: it never receives the participant's name, and it is not allowed to invent scores, fit labels or rankings. Those come from the engine. What the model contributes is the wording — the interpretation, the angle, the caution.
So treat it the way you would treat a colleague's handover note: a useful reading of the evidence, worth checking against the evidence.
Career fields
Fields are sorted into four tiers:
Recommend · Worth exploring · Validate first · Not a fit
Alongside each sits a fit type — strong broad fit, niche opportunity, explore carefully and others — and a row of up to five dots.
Three things about this section trip people up.
The dots are not a percentage. They are a five-point rendering of an internal signal. Underneath, that signal is built from rank correlations rescaled so that no correlation at all comes out as 50, not as 0. A field sitting at "50" means the evidence says nothing either way — it does not mean a half-match.
Tier and fit type are different questions. A field can score well and still land in Validate first: the tier reflects how confident the evidence is, not only how high it is. A strong-looking field in a cautious tier is exactly the one to ask about.
When nothing clears the bar, the top fields are promoted anyway. If no field meets the absolute threshold, the strongest quarter are shown as the best relative match, and the heading changes to say so. It is easy to skim past. If the tier heading mentions a relative match, read it as "the best of a weak set", not "recommended".
The lists are also capped, not exhaustive. Lower tiers show only a handful, and the sample job titles under a field are a slice, not the full set.
The charts
Under Questionnaire details: interests (RIASEC), work values, Big Five, work styles and VARK learning style.
Read these with four cautions.
The percentages have no true zero. Every family except VARK is scaled from a seven-point answer scale, so the lowest possible answer still renders as about 14%. A short bar is the bottom of the scale, not an absence.
VARK is not comparable to the others. Its four shares are carved out of one 100% — being high on one requires being lower on another. The other families score each dimension independently. They are drawn the same way, so this is easy to miss.
A missing trait can look like a low score. If a Big Five trait has no data, it can render as an empty sector rather than as "not measured". If a whole family was not assessed, its card simply is not there — absence of a card means absence of data, not a flat result.
The work-styles cloud exaggerates. Word size is stretched deliberately so the picture is readable, which means a participant whose styles are all similar still gets a dramatic big-to-small cloud. The numbers only appear on hover, and on a touch screen they do not appear at all. Do not read rank order off the sizes.
Also note neuroticism is shown as a plain higher-is-more percentage, with no reversal and no framing. Interpret it yourself before showing it to anyone.
What the participant sees
Not the same thing, so be careful quoting the screen to them.
- They do not see the tiers or the fit types. Their career fields are labelled simply Strong match or Good match.
- On their industries view they see a percentage — the same underlying signal your screen renders as dots. So a participant may quote you a number you cannot see, for a figure your own screen deliberately avoids showing as a percentage. Worth knowing before that conversation, not during it.
- They also get a work-mode picture — employment, freelancing, own business, private practice — which does not appear on your tab at all.
- Their AI interpretation is a separate one, written for them from a different prompt, clearly labelled as AI, and they must choose to generate it and pay for it from their own balance. Do not assume they have read anything resembling your Counselor Summary.
If the profile is not there
Three different sentences appear here, and they mean three different things. None of them tells you whether the person has been assessed — that is deliberate, and it stays true in all three cases.
"No profile shared with you yet" — nobody has asked them yet. Use the request control beside the provenance line.
"This participant has not shared their profile with you" — they were asked and said no. Asking again is a conversation, not a button.
"You have no counseling service with this participant" — there is no engagement between you, so there is nothing to share yet. Approve them, or check you are in the right organisation.
"No completed results yet" is a different matter entirely: an assessment exists and was not finished.
Related
- Your Counseling Desk — the whole surface this sits on
- Interpreting results in a session — turning a profile into a conversation about occupations
- What the AI sees — what the interpretation is written from
- Sharing an assessment