Editorial standards
Every guide on EnneaFox follows the same rules, so you can tell what comes from Enneagram tradition, what comes from published research, and what is our own practical advice.
Draft for owner review. This page has not yet been approved and may change.
Three labels on every claim that matters
- Research: what peer-reviewed studies found, with a link to the source.
- Tradition: what Enneagram teachers describe. Wings, lines, subtypes and levels of health belong here, because they have little or no direct research support.
- Editorial: our own practical suggestions, offered as suggestions.
Sources
We cite only publications we can verify, and each page lists its sources. Our anchor for the research picture is the systematic review by Hook and colleagues (2021), which found the evidence mixed. When we cannot verify a claim, we leave it out.
What we never publish
- Invented statistics, studies, testimonials, reviews, ratings or user counts.
- Claims that the assessment is validated, clinical, diagnostic or accurate to a percentage.
- Compatibility verdicts between types, or typings of public figures.
- Text copied or closely paraphrased from books, other tests or other websites.
How pages are written and checked
Drafting and checking may use AI writing tools. Before a page can be published it must pass automated checks for length, sourcing, banned claims, duplicated passages and copy style. The reviewed date on each page shows when it was written or last substantively reviewed. Authorship is credited to the EnneaFox editorial team; we do not invent expert bylines.
Corrections
If you find an error, write to support@enneafox.com with the page address and, if you can, a source. We correct factual errors and update the reviewed date.