A result leaves room for your judgement
You might notice that you agree to things before checking what you want, or that an apology leaves the same disagreement unresolved. A tool can help you look more closely at those moments and compare what happens in different situations.
A result reflects the answers you gave. It cannot tell the whole story of a person, establish a diagnosis, or reveal what someone privately feels or intends. Leave room for what you have not seen, what does not fit, and what may need a different explanation.
Context changes what is possible
Someone who depends on a relationship for housing, income or care may weigh disagreement differently from someone who can safely walk away. Understanding a response means asking what the person had to consider and which choices were actually available.
Culture, disability, neurodivergence, discrimination and past experience can also matter. A tool should leave room for those differences. One way of speaking, showing emotion or taking time to respond should not become the standard against which everyone is judged.
Understanding a response still leaves its impact to address
Stress may help explain why you snapped at someone. There is still the question of what they heard, how it affected them, and what needs to happen next. Acknowledging the pressure and taking responsibility for the response can happen together.
An apology starts to mean more when the person listens to the impact, addresses what remained unresolved, and follows their words with changed behaviour. If a pattern continues, its effect still needs attention, even when the explanation sounds convincing.
Calm delivery does not establish care or safety. Distress does not establish danger. Look at the action and its consequences, including whether people remain free to disagree, set a limit or ask for something to change. A single serious act may need a response before any repeated pattern is visible.
You choose what to explore and when to stop
You can find part of a description useful and disagree with the rest. You can leave a question unanswered, put a tool aside or discuss it with someone you trust. Using a tool does not require you to accept its interpretation of your experience.
The same applies when you share a tool with someone else. An invitation should leave them free to decline. A result should not become a way to demand disclosure, win a disagreement or pressure another person to accept your account of them.
No exploitation of pain
People may arrive here while questioning themselves or trying to understand something painful. That makes the way a tool asks questions, presents a result and offers a next step especially important.
TEG-Blue’s commitment is to make understanding available without using fear, shame or dependence to keep someone engaged. Tool design, communication and any future pricing should not suggest that a person needs to keep using or paying for the site to be safe, worthy or understood.
Funding should support the work. It should not determine what a result says or turn someone’s vulnerability into pressure to buy.
Make the tools usable for different people
A useful idea can become difficult to access when the wording is unclear, the text is hard to read, or an interaction depends on colour alone. Clear questions, readable contrast, keyboard access and text alongside colour are practical parts of this commitment.
English and Spanish should offer the same care, meaning and room for uncertainty. A translation should make sense on its own. Designing for different needs also requires testing and listening to the people using the tools; publishing an intention does not establish that every need has been met.
Be clear about evidence and personal information
The tools draw on TEG-Blue’s framework. The research behind a particular idea should be distinguished from what TEG-Blue proposes and what a tool can actually establish. A research reference does not, by itself, validate a tool or its result.
If a feature uses AI to produce an interpretation, the person using it should be told what was generated, what was checked and where it may be wrong. A generated explanation still needs human judgement and a way to question it.
Before asking someone to save or share personal information, the site should explain its purpose and how that information is handled. The privacy policy sets out the current data practices and how to make a privacy request.
Using a tool with other people brings responsibility
A question from a manager, teacher or practitioner can carry more pressure than the same question explored privately. Explain why a tool is being introduced, whether participation is optional, and who will see any answers. Consider what declining would mean for the person being asked.
TEG-Blue does not give someone authority to diagnose another person, decide their motives or replace professional judgement. People who build on the work should keep its limits visible, credit the sources, welcome corrections and examine how their use affects others.
TEG-Blue was created by Anna Paretas-Artacho. Sharing a link to a public tool and reproducing or adapting its content involve different permissions. The licensing page explains the current terms for reuse, professional settings and adaptations.
When a tool is not enough
These tools are for learning and reflection. They do not provide therapy, diagnosis, medical or legal advice, or crisis support. Decisions about safety, treatment, reporting or leaving a situation need the context and support that a public page cannot provide.
If there is immediate danger, contact local emergency services. Where speaking openly or setting a limit could bring retaliation, seek support appropriate to the situation before acting on a tool’s suggestions.
If a question is misleading, a result misses important context, or something on the site is difficult to use, you can contact TEG-Blue. Describe what you noticed and share only the details needed to explain the issue.