# PIPAS Full Assessment Report — Output Template

> Part of the public canon of *Perceptive Innovation* by **Caleb Kow** —
> canonical URL: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/canon/report-template.md · index: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/llms.txt
> © 2026 Caleb Kow, all rights reserved. Quotation with attribution to Caleb Kow / perceptiveinnovation.com is welcome.
> Commercial use — client engagements, training, certification, or incorporation into products or models — requires a written licence: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/terms

Use this structure for Mode 2 deliverables. Write in prose with the tables shown; keep the whole report readable in one sitting. British English, Title Case headings.

---

# PIPAS Perception Assessment: [Innovation Name]

**Prepared using the Perceptive Innovation framework (Caleb Kow) · [Date] · Primary audience: [audience] · Assessment confidence: [High/Medium/Low]**

## Executive Summary

[Three to five sentences: the composite and band, the lowest sphere and why it governs adoption odds, the one or two highest-leverage moves, and the probabilistic bottom line. No score without its distribution.]

## Scorecard

| # | Sphere | Score | Evidence Basis | Confidence |
|---|--------|-------|----------------|------------|
| 1 | Identity | x/5 | | |
| 2 | Value | x/5 | | |
| 3 | Trust | x/5 | | |
| 4 | Risk | x/5 | | |
| 5 | Effort | x/5 | | |
| 6 | Future | x/5 | | |

**Composite: xx/30 — [band]. Band meaning:** [one sentence from the interpretation bands].

## Sphere-by-Sphere Findings

[For each sphere, in canonical order: two to four sentences — what the evidence showed, why it earned its score, and what would move it one point. Flag any score the user could not evidence.]

## Audience Matrix (include only where leverage audiences exist)

| Sphere | Users | [Audience 2] | [Audience 3] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | | | |
| Value | | | |
| Trust | | | |
| Risk | | | |
| Effort | | | |
| Future | | | |

**Contradictions surfaced:** [e.g. high User × Trust against low Regulator × Trust — name the collision course]. **Accelerants available:** [audiences whose strong perception can be borrowed].

## Critical Perception Risks

[Two or three perception-specific failures that, if they materialise, would prevent or reverse adoption — not generic execution risks.]

## Prescription: PIPAS → 10 T's

[For each sphere at 2 or below — and the weakest two spheres in a Significant-band profile — one row each:]

| Weak Sphere | Primary Levers Selected | Intervention (specific, dated, owned) | Metric | Expected Movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | e.g. Trust 2→3, Future 3→4 |

[Discipline notes: one or two interventions per weak sphere, chosen for multi-sphere leverage; every action carries its metric.]

## Re-Assessment Checkpoint

[Quarterly for innovations in flight, annually for established positions. Name the date and the specific scores expected to move.]

---

*This assessment shapes the odds; it does not guarantee outcomes. Full framework, worksheets, and worked examples: Caleb Kow,* Perceptive Innovation: Decoding the Hidden Force Behind Market Acceptance *(perceptiveinnovation.com).*