TDMI decision type
KATU
The Double-Checking Executioner
Your responses have a consistent direction, but deciding takes time.
This is a general type guide. Take the test to see your own response times and changes of choice.
Compare with other responses
These are anonymous completed responses from the LoveType version. They do not include the original site's samples.
Loading response data…
Reading this type: The Double-Checking Executioner
Your responses have a consistent direction, but deciding takes time. You may know what you would choose yet check the conditions or your feelings before committing. Look at time spent and changes of choice separately.
What the four letters mean
- K: Basis of judgment. Across the 7 attribute-based questions, more answers follow the victim route preset by the test. The preset itself is not a correct moral answer.
- A: Mode of involvement. Active input and recorded choices are reflected across the run, including its unanswered rounds.
- T: Response consistency. The combined indicator of answer direction and choice timing shows consistency. This does not directly measure emotional or personality stability.
- U: Decision speed. The median response time and changes of choice indicate more time spent deciding.
Compare with your own record
Were you thinking about the choice itself or what would follow? Did you already favor one route but wait before selecting it?
The mean shown on the result page measures time to the final change on answered questions. The speed axis instead also uses the median and unanswered records. You cannot infer the four-letter code from the mean alone.
Boundaries and taking the test again
An axis on a scoring boundary should not be read as a strong tendency either way. Even if the code assigns a letter, prioritize the report's boundary marker. The same routes can produce different results if timing or changes differ.
This is an entertainment and discussion test using fictional situations. It is not a basis for judging real relationships, abilities or moral worth. Use an unexpected result to discuss what you considered in specific scenes, rather than labeling yourself or someone else.