Sources: 2026-09 / week-1

Claim ledger for "You Measure Your Leaders. You Have Not Measured This."

Claim (as written)	Source	Link	Status
The capacity to solve novel problems on the spot is tied to working memory and is distinct from the stored knowledge that accumulates with experience (fluid vs crystallized ability).	Cattell-Horn fluid/crystallized framework; working-memory-to-fluid link per this study	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X25000415	`verified`
Prior work experience shows no significant relationship with performance once a person moves to a new organization.	Van Iddekinge, Arnold, Frieder & Roth, "A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of prehire work experience," Personnel Psychology 72(4), 2019	https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/peps.12335	`verified`
Change agility is the brain's capacity to operate under volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity; it is a fourth capacity alongside IQ, EQ and SQ, which do not capture it individually or collectively.	Vanaya NeuroTech, Partner Certification Module 01, Neurometric Essentials v1.0 (Agile Neuro-Index facts)	Internal document	`internal`
The Agile Neuro-Index reads brain activity via EEG during real business-scenario decisions, confirms the pattern with a scenario-based response measure, and outputs a profile across four agility domains (mental, learning, innovation, social).	Vanaya NeuroTech, Module 01, Neurometric Essentials v1.0 (ANI method and output)	Internal document	`internal`

Handling notes

The fourth-capacity framing is Vanaya's own. The external citation supports only the narrower, well-established point: there is a distinct capacity for novel-problem reasoning (fluid ability), tied to working memory and separate from stored knowledge. Change agility as a whole, and its framing as a fourth construct alongside IQ, EQ and SQ, is the module's construct, logged internal. The article keeps the external cite scoped to the novel-problem capacity and does not claim external validation of change agility. Carried as a flag for Dr. Lyra, same as August week 2.
The method is described, not counted. The module says "three measurement layers" and then lists two. The article states the two it documents (EEG during business scenarios, plus a scenario-based response measure) and asserts no count, per the guardrail's "When an internal source contradicts itself."
No validity or accuracy figures used. The 92%, the 50,000, and any "predicts performance" claim are kept off the page entirely, per the guardrail. The instrument is carried on what it reads, not on a validity number.
The four domains are named, not explored. Naming them establishes the set so the newsletter can hand off to October to January without introducing a new claim. Week 1 does not argue any single domain.

Week 1 establishes that the capacity exists, is distinct, and is read by the Agile Neuro-Index. It does not say what a reading means (week 2 owns fit-not-grade) and it does not say the capacity develops (week 3 owns developability). The close opens the "what does the reading tell me" question without answering it.

The fluid-vs-crystallized distinctness source and the Van Iddekinge experience finding were both verified in August (weeks 2 and 1 respectively) and carry the same wording here. The memory-systems framing (Squire 2004, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15464402/) is available if a later draft needs to restate that experience and competency are forms of stored memory; not cited in this draft to keep the article tight.