What's Your Money Style?

1. Vision, purpose, and placement

Build a professional adult-oriented financial self-awareness experience in the BOBCCPROS Money Style Assessment. Participants explore their financial decision-making tendencies, generational context and family money experiences; coaches use the results to guide respectful conversations and practical action plans.

Guiding principle: Assess - Understand - Learn - Apply - Review - Grow.

This is an educational coaching tool, not a psychological diagnosis, credit or employment screening test, financial eligibility instrument, or substitute for individualized regulated financial advice.

2. Assessment composition

All sections are self-report. Sections B and C provide context and coaching themes; they do not change the four behavior dimension scores. All 42 statements are required before submission.

3. Four financial behavior dimensions

Descriptions are nonjudgmental possibilities, not fixed identities. Most participants will show a combination of tendencies. Close dimension scores should be reported as blended patterns rather than as definitive distinctions.

4. Participant journey

• Welcome screen describing purpose, limitations, confidentiality, participant choice and the assessment structure.
• Consent and privacy notice explaining that assigned-coach access is required for program participation.
• One required statement per screen, with five response options, progress indicator, Back and Next navigation, and save/resume functionality.
• A visible 30-minute assessment timer.
• Review step that identifies unanswered statements and allows answers to be changed before submission.
• Participant submission remains disabled until all 42 statements are answered.
• The timer automatically submits available responses at expiration without inventing missing answers.
• Submission locks a dated assessment attempt; subsequent attempts are recorded separately.
• Results are unavailable until final submission, then present primary and secondary tendencies, four score bars, narrative insights and individualized coaching actions when all scored responses are complete.
• Participants can access learning recommendations and review goals, exercises and coaching progress.

Timing configuration: 30 minutes; automatically submit available responses at expiration.

5. Response options and draft scoring method

Section A draft model: six questions per dimension; reverse-scored statements use 6 minus the selected response. Each dimension totals 6 to 30 points. A proposed display normalization is (raw score - 6) / 24 x 100. This is a within-questionnaire score, not a percentile or verified measure of financial competence.

Primary and secondary styles represent the two highest dimension scores. Ties and near-ties require transparent blended interpretation. Missing-answer rules must be explicitly defined before production scoring. Results should display the assessment/scoring version.

Draft scoring key: In this preliminary bank, D5-D6, I5-I6, S5-S6 and C5-C6 are proposed reverse-keyed statements. Their wording and factor alignment must be tested. Do not assume validity or reliability until piloting and analysis are complete.

6. Generational context rules

Optional demographic context may include self-identified generation or a broad age/birth-year category with a prefer-not-to-answer option. Common boundaries (Baby Boomers 1946-1964, Gen X 1965-1980, Millennials 1981-1996, Gen Z 1997-2012) are conventions, not behavioral determinants. Never assign financial traits based on age cohort.

Section B and C responses inform participant-controlled reflections and optional coaching discussion prompts. Do not create a single generational score, rank family backgrounds, or automatically classify personal experiences as deficits.

7. Results report specification

• Profile header: date, assessment version, primary/secondary financial behavior combination and explanatory caveat.
• Four visually distinct dimension bars with accurate numeric labels and a reminder that scores are not percentiles.
• Strengths and potential blind spots expressed as possibilities, not diagnoses or judgments.
• Narrative sections: money decisions, planning habits, communication preferences, financial stress reflections and approach to risk.
• Generational context: participant-selected experiences, rather than generalizations about an age cohort.
• Family legacy: money lessons, values, beliefs, responsibilities and future intentions as reflected by voluntarily shared answers.
• Three practical suggested coaching actions and links to relevant lessons or worksheets.
• Participant controls to review results and see dated prior attempts.

8. Coaching dashboard specification

• Role-restricted participant roster and assessment completion status.
• Profile summary with four scores, blended style and date.
• Participant-approved coaching goals and action plans with review status.
• Discussion prompts matched to the participant's expressed behaviors and chosen goals.
• Recommended learning modules and relevant completion status.
• Assessment history with version identifiers; no silent changes to submitted answers.
• Private coach notes separated from participant responses and clearly governed by access rules.
• Aggregate program analytics with appropriate minimization to prevent identifying individuals.

Assigned coaches can view participant assessment information as a required part of program participation. Retake comparisons should focus on reflection; changed profile scores do not, by themselves, prove improved financial health.

9. Records and functional data model

10. Privacy, security and accessibility

• Data minimization: do not require income, bank balances, account numbers, debt amounts or other unrelated financial information.
• Clear consent describing educational purpose, who can view what, storage, use, retention and deletion pathways.
• Role-based access, secure authentication, encryption in transit and at rest, and appropriate audit logs.
• Editable draft attempts and locked submitted attempts; corrections occur through a new dated attempt or authorized documented correction workflow.
• Avoid collecting response-speed or first-instinct revision histories in the initial implementation.
• Accessible controls, keyboard navigation, screen-reader labeling, legible type and mobile-friendly layout.
• No use of assessment results for employment, lending, eligibility, access restrictions or financial ranking.
• Appropriate professional review of privacy requirements, educational claims and intellectual-property considerations before release.

11. Quality and acceptance criteria

• All 42 configured original draft items display correctly and require a response.
• Draft responses survive normal navigation and sign-in interruptions as designed.
• The timer follows the approved duration and expiration behavior.
• The review screen correctly identifies unanswered items and uses final submitted responses only.
• Submission is blocked until all 42 statements are answered.
• Results remain locked until final submission.
• Dimension scores are reproducible, independently testable and consistent with the approved versioned scoring key.
• Results avoid diagnostic, predictive or percentile claims unsupported by evidence.
• Coach views use role-based access and never expose participant information to unauthorized roles through reporting or exports.
• Every learning module includes required work and the next module remains locked until the assigned coach approves the current submission.
• Returned work remains editable and does not unlock the next module.
• Learning links resolve to verified lesson identifiers and completion synchronization respects access permissions.
• Mobile and assistive-technology testing demonstrates usable end-to-end workflows.
• Pilot users and coaches can provide feedback on item clarity and usefulness; revisions are versioned and tested.

12. Product delivery components

• Participant-facing welcome, consent, assessment, review, results and action-plan screens.
• Administrative assessment configuration and version management.
• Deterministic scoring, results and recommendation services.
• Role-based coach dashboard, private notes and progress reviews.
• Required module-work submission, coach approval, revision, and sequential lesson-unlock workflow.
• Educational mapping interface and integration endpoints as supported by the actual environment.
• Data retention, audit, reporting and role-based access controls.
• Testing materials, operational documentation and coach guidance.

13. Assumptions and boundaries

The questionnaire is an original working draft requiring content review, participant piloting and psychometric evaluation before stronger measurement claims are made. The technical integration approach depends on the actual BOBCCPROS system, authentication methods, existing data model and supported interfaces. The product must distinguish educational coaching from personalized regulated financial advice.

Blueprint status: Functional and content specification for review and implementation planning. No development duration, developer cost request, or developer proposal instruction is included.