Rewir3d · Compatibility Checklist · $9
Know who you're
dealing with — before
you're in too deep.
Six tools for evaluating a person and a dynamic before your emotions make the decision for you. Used before the first date, during the first 90 days, and when you're not sure what you're looking at anymore.
This checklist is for you if
"I always realise too late that something was off."
"I know my non-negotiables — I just ignore them when I like someone."
"I'm three months in and I'm not sure what I'm actually in."
"I keep choosing people who seem right on paper but feel wrong over time."
How to use this: Work through each section in order for a new relationship. For existing ones, go directly to Section 3 (Emotional Availability Assessment) and Section 5 (90-Day Audit). The checklists are interactive — tap to check items. Your scores calculate automatically.
Your progress
Items checked0 checked
Section 01 of 06
The First
30 Days.
The first 30 days are not about chemistry. They are about data. Chemistry is your nervous system responding to familiarity — sometimes familiarity with safety, often familiarity with a pattern you have experienced before. The checklists below are designed to be used during dates and early interactions, when your objectivity is still available. After that, emotional investment makes honest evaluation much harder.
Green flags — signs of genuine emotional health
Check any you have observed. The more you check, the more evidence you have of actual availability. These are not guarantees — they are data points.
✓
GreenThey remember specific things you mentioned in a previous conversation — without promptingGenuine attention, not performance. Hard to fake consistently.
✓
GreenThey can express what they feel without you having to extract itEmotional access. Not just being pleasant — actually naming internal states.
✓
GreenWhen you express something vulnerable, they respond to what you said — not to how it made them feelAttunement. The most underrated early signal.
✓
GreenThey have friendships that predated you and that they actively maintainPeople without independent social lives often make their romantic partners their entire world. That is not flattering — it is a warning.
✓
GreenTheir stories about past relationships contain some acknowledgment of their own role in how they endedThe complete absence of self-accountability in how someone talks about exes is one of the clearest early indicators.
✓
GreenThey treat people they have no reason to perform for with the same warmth as people they're trying to impressHow someone treats a waiter, a stranger, a service worker when you are watching — and when they think you are not — is the same person you are investing in.
✓
GreenWhen you express a small need or preference, they accommodate it without making it a negotiationEarly limit-testing reveals a lot. "I need to leave by 10" — what happens next is information.
✓
GreenThey are curious about your inner world — not just your story or your achievementsQuestions like "what did that feel like?" vs. "what did you do about it?" reveal different orientations to you as a person.
✓
GreenYou feel more yourself around them than you do in most social situationsYou are not performing, managing, or shrinking. You are just being you. This is rarer than it should be.
✓
GreenWhen something comes up that creates friction, they engage with it rather than shutting down or deflectingEarly conflict response is one of the most predictive early signals. Not that there is no friction — that they can handle it.
Red flags — patterns that typically worsen, not improve
These are behavioural patterns — not vibes. Check any you have observed more than once. Once can be a bad day. Twice is a pattern beginning.
✓
WatchThey speak about exes with contempt, blame, or stories where they are entirely the victimThe way someone speaks about people who hurt them tells you exactly how they process pain. You may become the next story.
✓
WatchThey respond to your small expressions of preference or need with defensiveness or counter-demands"I'd like to try somewhere else next time" should not start a negotiation. If it does — notice it.
✓
WatchCompliments feel conditional — like they are tied to your behaviour rather than your presenceWarmth that only appears when you perform a certain way is not warmth. It is intermittent reinforcement in early form.
✓
WatchThey make you feel slightly off-balance — never quite sure where you standThis feeling — which is often confused with excitement — is a nervous system signal. Your system is tracking inconsistency.
✓
WatchThey make small comments about your appearance, choices, or opinions that feel slightly belittlingContempt in small doses early is contempt. It tends not to shrink over time.
✓
WatchThey become unusually intense or invested very quickly — saying things that feel too significant too soonLove-bombing is intensity without track record. It can feel like recognition. It is almost always about their needs, not yours.
✓
WatchYou find yourself editing what you say to avoid a particular reaction from themIf you are already self-censoring in the first month, that is not caution — it is your nervous system adapting to their unpredictability.
✓
WatchThey are consistently unavailable but consistently interested — enough contact to keep you engaged, not enough to feel secureThis is the architecture of intermittent reinforcement. It creates strong attachment. It is not evidence of a good match.
A note on rationalisation
The most common thing people do when they check multiple red flags is find reasons the flags do not apply. "But they had a difficult childhood." "They were just nervous." "It was one time." Those explanations may be true. They do not change the behaviour you observed. Use this checklist as data, not as a verdict — but do not explain away what you actually saw.
Section 02 of 06
Emotional
Availability Score.
Emotional availability is the single most important compatibility factor — and the one most people evaluate last. These 30 questions are scored 1–4. Your total score produces a specific verdict. Answer based on what you have actually observed, not on what you believe this person is capable of eventually.
How to score
Tap the option that most accurately describes what you have observed. 1 = Not at all / Never · 2 = Rarely / Sometimes · 3 = Usually / Often · 4 = Consistently / Yes. Your total and verdict update automatically.
0
Emotional availability score
Answer the questions above
Score updates as you select answers.
Available90–120
Caution60–89
Concern40–59
Low30–39
Section 03 of 06
Your
Non-Negotiables.
Most people know their non-negotiables. Very few honour them under emotional pressure. This section has two parts: a pre-built list of the most common dealbreakers (tap the ones that apply to you), and a framework for figuring out your personal ones — the specific limits that have been crossed in past relationships and that you need to name and hold this time.
Tap every non-negotiable that is genuinely true for you
Not aspirationally true. Not true when you are feeling strong. True when you are three months in and you really like someone.
Emotional and relational non-negotiables
Tap each one that is a genuine limit for you — not a preference, a limit.
0 selected
Behavioural non-negotiables
Specific behaviours you will not accept — regardless of circumstances or explanations.
0 selected
The three questions that surface your actual dealbreakers
Question 01
In your last significant relationship — what was the thing that, looking back, you knew was wrong in the first three months but stayed for anyway?
Your answer is your most important non-negotiable. It already happened once. Name it so it cannot happen without your awareness again.
Question 02
What is the specific thing someone would have to do — or consistently fail to do — for you to know, clearly, that this relationship cannot continue?
Not a vague value like "respect" — a specific, observable behaviour. "If they raise their voice at me more than once" or "if I feel consistently less confident in myself after six months." Specificity is what makes a limit holdable.
Question 03
What have you negotiated away in past relationships that you told yourself you would never negotiate away?
This is the real list. Whatever comes up here — write it down. These are not preferences. These are the things that eroded you when you let them go. Do not let them go again.
Section 04 of 06
Attachment
Compatibility Map.
Understanding which attachment patterns work together — and which ones create predictable, exhausting dynamics — is more useful than trying to change who you are attracted to. You cannot override nervous system attraction. You can understand what you are walking into, and decide what you are willing to work with. Tap each pairing to expand.
Anxious + Avoidant
Most common pairing
›
This is the most frequently occurring insecure pairing — and the one that produces the strongest initial chemistry. The anxious partner's hypervigilance to disconnection activates the avoidant partner's deactivation response. The avoidant withdrawal activates the anxious partner's protest behaviour. Each person is triggering the other's deepest wound. It feels like chemistry because your nervous system is highly activated. It is not evidence of a good match.
⚠ Watch for: Feeling like you are constantly pursuing someone who keeps retreating. Conversations where you feel like you said the wrong thing. A persistent sense of never quite having them — even when you do. If only one person is aware of this pattern, the dynamic will not change.
✓ Workable when: Both people have named the cycle. The avoidant partner has language for their deactivation and uses it rather than disappearing. The anxious partner can regulate before escalating. Both are actively working on their own patterns — not just hoping the other person changes.
Anxious + Anxious
Amplifying dynamic
›
Both partners bring hypervigilance, fear of abandonment, and a need for reassurance. The early stages often feel intensely validating — "they finally understand me." The problem: two activated nervous systems do not soothe each other. They amplify each other. Each person's anxiety triggers the other's. Reassurance spirals are common: each person seeks reassurance from a partner who themselves feels insecure.
⚠ Watch for: Escalating conflicts where both people feel abandoned simultaneously. A relationship that requires constant emotional management. Very little capacity for either person to be regulated when the other is distressed.
✓ Workable when: Both people have individual regulation capacity — they can soothe themselves before reaching for the other person. Both have done enough individual work to hold themselves without needing the relationship as their primary stabiliser.
Avoidant + Avoidant
Surface harmony
›
This pairing feels easy initially — both people respect independence, neither person pushes for more closeness than the other can give, conflict is minimal. The problem is that genuine intimacy never develops because both people deactivate whenever closeness gets close enough to trigger their alarm. The relationship can stay comfortable and shallow for years without either person realising it.
⚠ Watch for: A relationship that feels good but feels slightly hollow. Both people highly functional independently but emotionally distant together. A nagging sense that you are companions rather than partners.
✓ Workable when: Both people genuinely want depth — not just comfort — and have identified their specific deactivation triggers. One or both people are actively building intimacy tolerance rather than treating distance as a permanent preference.
Anxious + Secure
Growth pairing
›
The most powerful combination for the anxious partner's growth. The secure partner's consistent availability and willingness to repair provides the corrective relational experience the anxious partner's nervous system has never had — evidence that love does not require hypervigilance to maintain. Over time, the anxious partner can develop earned security through this relationship.
⚠ Watch for: The anxious partner using the secure partner's stability as an excuse not to do their own work. The secure partner gradually becoming the relationship's primary emotional labour provider. Secure people can erode under sustained insecure dynamics — it happens slowly and they often do not notice until significant damage is done.
✓ Thrives when: The anxious partner is doing active work on their regulation and communication, not just benefiting from the secure partner's groundedness. The secure partner maintains their own identity and limits.
Avoidant + Secure
Growth pairing
›
The secure partner does not pursue the avoidant partner's withdrawal — which breaks the deactivation-pursuit cycle. The secure partner can hold the relationship with confidence during the avoidant partner's periods of distance, providing the experience of distance that does not lead to abandonment. This is profoundly reparative for avoidant patterns.
⚠ Watch for: The avoidant partner testing the secure partner repeatedly — unconsciously creating situations that should end the relationship, to confirm the secure partner will not leave. This testing needs to be named and addressed directly.
✓ Thrives when: The avoidant partner is genuinely interested in building intimacy — not just comfortable with a partner who does not push. The secure partner's stability is not mistaken for passivity or lack of interest.
Secure + Secure
Foundation pairing
›
Both partners come with the foundational capacity for conflict repair, direct communication, and comfortable intimacy. This is not a guarantee of a good relationship — it is an excellent foundation. The work here is compatibility in values, direction, and life vision rather than nervous system compatibility. Two secure people can still be wrong for each other.
✓ What to focus on: Values alignment, directional compatibility (where you are both going in life), and genuine mutual investment. The attachment dynamic will not be your central challenge here — focus on who these two specific people are and whether they genuinely work together.
Section 05 of 06
90-Day
Relationship Audit.
Three months is when the performance ends and the actual person shows up. The honeymoon neurochemistry is fading. Patterns are becoming visible. This audit is for right now — when you are invested enough to have real data, but early enough that objectivity is still possible.
Tap every statement that is genuinely true for your current situation
This is not about what you hope will be true. It is about what you have actually observed and felt over the past three months.
1 — Self-integrity: are you still yourself?
0–10 pts›
✓
I am at least as confident in myself as I was before this relationship started
✓
My relationship with my closest friendships has not significantly changed since this began
✓
I do not regularly edit what I say to avoid a particular reaction from them
✓
My sense of my own judgment has not become less reliable since this relationship started
4/4: Self-integrity is intact. 2–3/4: Some erosion — worth examining what specifically has changed. 0–1/4: Significant self-erosion. This is one of the most reliable early indicators of a harmful dynamic.
2 — Repair capacity: can you come back from things?
0–10 pts›
✓
When we have a conflict, we genuinely reconnect afterward — not just resume normal function
✓
They have acknowledged their role in at least one conflict without requiring me to lead them to it
✓
There are no topics I know are impossible to raise with them
✓
I feel emotionally safe enough to be honest about what I actually experience in this relationship
4/4: Repair is functional. 2–3/4: Partial repair capacity — examine which areas feel unsafe. 0–1/4: Repair is largely absent. Relationships without repair erode — they do not stabilise.
3 — Reciprocity: is investment roughly balanced?
0–10 pts›
✓
Both of us initiate contact, plans, and care with roughly equal frequency
✓
I do not feel like the primary emotional labour provider in this relationship
✓
When I express a need, it is met with engagement rather than deflection
✓
I do not feel resentful about an imbalance in how much each of us gives
Sustained reciprocity imbalance is one of the most reliable predictors of eventual resentment and dissolution. Even a loving partner causes harm through consistent under-investment.
4 — Direction: are you going somewhere compatible?
0–10 pts›
✓
Our core values — around honesty, commitment, family, growth — are compatible rather than in regular tension
✓
We want compatible things from the next 3–5 years of our lives
✓
The version of me this relationship is requiring me to be is someone I want to become
✓
If the things I am hoping will change in this person do not change — I am genuinely okay with what remains
The last question is the most important one in this section. Most relationships are sustained by hope rather than by what is actually present. Honest answers to "if nothing changes, is this still a yes?" are clarifying in a way that most questions are not.
Section 06 of 06
Trust Your
Gut Calibration.
Your instincts are more reliable than you give them credit for — but they can be overridden by hope, chemistry, and familiar patterns. This section is not about making a decision. It is about reconnecting with what you already know, underneath the part of you that is still trying to make this work.
The five questions you are probably avoiding
Question 01
If a close friend described this relationship to you exactly as it actually is — what would you tell them?
The advice you would give a friend and the story you tell yourself about your own situation are almost always different. The gap between them is important.
Question 02
Is there something you have been telling yourself is temporary — "they're going through a lot right now" / "they'll change when they feel more secure" — that has been temporary for longer than six months?
Temporary is a duration. If it does not have one — if the circumstances justifying the behaviour keep shifting — the behaviour is the pattern, not the exception.
Question 03
On your best days in this relationship — what does it feel like? On your worst days — what does it feel like? Which one is more representative of the average?
We evaluate relationships based on their peaks and use those peaks to justify tolerating the troughs. The average day is the actual relationship.
Question 04
Do you choose to be in this relationship — or do you stay because leaving feels too uncertain, too painful, or too final?
Fear-based staying and chosen commitment feel identical from the inside until you ask the question directly. This is the question.
Question 05
What do you already know — the thing you have been hoping the right evidence will either confirm or disprove — but that you actually already know?
You came to this checklist with a question. That question is almost always an answer that is looking for permission. Whatever came up when you read this — notice it.
On trusting yourself
The pattern most common in insecure attachment is not that people have bad instincts. It is that they have learned to override their instincts in favour of someone else's narrative about what is happening. Your discomfort is information. Your doubt is information. The feeling that something is off is information. You do not have to act on it immediately. But you do not have to explain it away either.
Ready to go deeper?
The Attachment Reset Toolkit gives you the regulation tools, scripts, and boundary framework to do something with what this checklist surfaced.
- 5 regulation exercises for when you spiral — sequenced by intensity
- Word-for-word scripts for the conversations that keep going wrong
- Boundary scripts with the follow-through framework
- Deep dives into all 4 attachment types and how to work with them
- The 10 structural principles of every secure relationship dynamic
"The checklist told me what I already knew. The toolkit gave me something to do about it. I've used the scripts module twice this week alone."
— Rewir3d buyer · used checklist + toolkit together
$17
$47
· Instant access · Notion + PDF
Get the Attachment Reset Toolkit — $17 →
30-day refund · no questions asked
Or get the Complete Edition — everything included — $37 →