The canon · from the laws to the work
The method: four beats that close into a loop
The laws describe how the world behaves; the method is what you build on top of it. It isn't a sequence that ends: it's a flywheel — more meetings generate more data, more data generates better meetings. It's why time works for the discipline instead of against it.
- Every beat descends from one of the six laws, and the page says so
- The system parameters are the real ones, read from production with their date
- Nobody sits down at a table without having said yes
The shape of the method
What happens, in order
-
01 · Footprint
You declare who you know
The question almost no professional record asks, and the one that makes everything else possible.
-
02 · Calculation
AIRA© discards, it doesn't propose
The problem isn't finding enough possible connections: it's choosing the very few worth an hour of your time.
-
03 · Meeting
Technology steps back
Two people really get to know each other. No algorithm signs a trust in place of whoever grants it.
-
04 · Measure
The verdict goes back into the engine
Whoever lived the meeting rates it, and that verdict changes the calculation for everyone else.
01 · First beat
The relational Footprint
Every professional record asks who you are and what you do. Nobody asks who you know — and it's the only question you can start from to design a meeting.
Profiling doesn't collect an address book. It collects the shape of a sphere of influence: across which of the nineteen business sectors a person can genuinely connect someone with decision-making power — entrepreneurs, managers, executives — and with what density.
It's a substantial difference, and it's worth stating explicitly, because it's also why the system is compatible with the way people handle their own relationships: no name from anyone's address book ever enters the calculation. What enters is the map of the sectors in which that person has a voice.
The verb we use for this step is a deliberate choice: sharing your profile, not handing it over. It stays the person's own, made available for a purpose stated in advance — receiving people worth meeting, never advertising.
19
Business sectors across which you declare your own sphere of influence
Structure of the Relational Foot Print® · unchanged since 2024
8
Sectors of influence a Connector declares on average, out of 19 possible
As of 13/08/2026 · average across qualified profiles in the MigaMATCH production database
134
B2B contacts a Connector declares on average during profiling
As of 13/08/2026 · self-declared figure, not verified one by one
286,365
Companies reachable by adding up the network's declared spheres of influence
As of 13/08/2026 · sum of declared B2B contacts, not an address book we hold
The fourth number is the one that explains why the first beat comes before everything else: it's the size of the pool the network reaches, and it wouldn't exist if the question "who do you know" hadn't been asked.
A profile, not an address book
Each spoke is one of the nineteen sectors of the Relational Foot Print®. Where the shape widens, the person can name who they know with decision-making power in that area and with what density; where it stays close to the centre, that sector hasn't been declared yet.
The drawing doesn't carry the names of the nineteen sectors: they belong to the production profile, not to publishable data here. What the page can show, and does show, is the shape — how irregular a real sphere of influence is, never a full circle.
02 · Second beat
AIRA©'s calculation
Automated Relational Engineering Algorithm. Its job isn't finding possible connections — those are in the millions. It's discarding almost all of them.
With two thousand people in the network the possible pairs run into the millions, and the overwhelming majority are perfectly useless: two professionals with nothing to give each other. The bottleneck isn't quantity, it's selection — and a calculation that fills your calendar instead of giving you back time has failed at its own purpose.
That's why the system is built on a threshold rather than a volume target: a connection only becomes a deliverable match if its calculated affinity clears 70%. Below that threshold it stays in the database and reaches nobody.
The corollary of the Third Law adds the constraint that fit alone doesn't provide: two parties can complement each other perfectly on the operational level and share nothing on the level of values. Complementarity opens the door; alignment on declared values decides whether anyone actually walks through it.
4,112,669
Pairs evaluated by the algorithm, since launch
As of 16/08/2026 · row count of match_results in the MigaMATCH production database
70%
Minimum affinity below which a match is delivered to nobody
Production configuration read 16/08/2026 · delivery_min_affinity
76.7%
Average affinity of matches actually delivered
As of 13/08/2026 · harmonic mean with relational multiplier, not the arithmetic mean
2.6
Matches it takes on average before the right one. It's the friction, and we don't hide it
All-time · Scouting_Match excluded
The ratio between the first figure and the delivered matches is the method's real portrait: out of four million pairs evaluated, only a tiny fraction was ever proposed. Few and right, not many and random.
The six dimensions the calculation works on are below: how a connection is evaluated.
Inside the second beat
The six dimensions used to evaluate a connection
A single criterion would produce a list of lookalikes. Six criteria together produce a fit — which is why the result doesn't resemble what a search engine gives you.
-
01 · Strategic affinity
How much what one party is looking for matches what the other can give. It's the dimension that weighs most, and it's bidirectional: it counts both ways or it doesn't count.
-
02 · Complementarity
Not similarity — the difference that fits together. Equals add up, unequals complete each other: one holds exactly what the other lacks. Third Law
-
03 · Value chain
Whether the two sectors genuinely intersect: one's customers are the other's suppliers, or the two talk to the same people every day for different reasons.
-
04 · Reliability
The trajectory of someone who behaves as they said they would, measured over time and not self-declared. It's the method's fourth beat re-entering the second. Fifth Law
-
05 · Timing
Every expected result has a time by which it's expected. Two parties who agree on a synergy after a match don't just set themselves a goal: they set themselves a deadline by which the first result — even a small one — has to arrive. The deadline is declared in the Matching Agreement, and the system checks it. It's what stops a successful meeting from staying a good intention.
What enters the calculation, though, isn't the promise: it's how well a person kept to the deadlines they set themselves. Every declared deadline leaves an outcome, every outcome stays, and that trace feeds dimension 04's reliability score. The two are read together, and they say two different things: one whether someone is reliable, the other by when.
-
06 · Geography
Where people are, and how much that distance matters. It enters the calculation as a correction, not a filter: distance lowers or raises a score, it doesn't exclude anyone outright — because the right relationship four hundred kilometres away is worth more than the wrong one round the corner.
A note on time, because it's the dimension that behaves differently from all the others. The other five are read off two profiles before people meet. Timing has two faces: the deadline is declared after the meeting, but what the calculation weighs is what those deadlines produced over time. It's the only dimension the fourth beat hands back to the second — that is, this page's flywheel, seen up close: the measure that flows back into the calculation.
03 · Third beat
The meeting
This is where technology steps back a pace so the human can step forward. Trust is only born between people, and the handshake remains the discipline's sovereign gesture.
Both parties receive an introduction and its context: who the other person is, why the algorithm put them together, what each of them is looking for. Then the system steps aside.
Nobody sits down without having said yes. It isn't a courtesy: it's the condition that separates a match from a bought contact. A name is passed along without asking anyone's permission; an introduction requires two consents, and whoever receives it already knows they're expected.
Declining is expected and costs nothing. What the system measures isn't the no — it's the silence: a delivered match lives for seven days, and beyond that window it stops being an open opportunity. It's the corollary of the First Law made operational: the commitment is to respond, not to succeed. Yes, no, or not now.
7 days
A delivered match's lifespan, beyond which it expires
Production configuration read 16/08/2026 · match_expiry_days
0
The cost of a decline on the reliability score of whoever expresses it
Production configuration read 16/08/2026 · aff_match_declined
562
Meetings held in the last thirty days
Read 16/08/2026 · rolling 30-day window, Scouting_Match excluded
5
Matches a week at most, by default
Production configuration read 16/08/2026 · default_max_matchings_week
The last figure is a cap, not a target: a system that delivered everything it calculates would turn the network into noise, which is exactly the channel people are running away from.
04 · Fourth beat
The measure
Every meeting receives a rating from whoever lived it, every piece of feedback leaves a trace, every trace feeds the next calculation. Here the cycle closes and starts again, more informed than before.
Both parties rate the meeting after it happens, within a declared deadline of twenty-one days. The rating doesn't stay a courtesy survey: it enters the Reliability dimension and changes the calculation of all of that person's future matches — including the ones they aren't involved in.
This is also where the Matching Agreement lives: the optional mutual commitment two parties declare after getting to know each other, with defined terms and timing, which the system checks after a margin of thirty days. It isn't a contract — it's a promise made verifiable, and the practical difference is that when it isn't kept the system knows.
The Fifth Law adds the variable that makes this beat different from a review system: reliability isn't a state, it's a trajectory. The same person measured at three months and at three years can tell two different stories, and only the curve says whether a trust is settled or still to be verified.
21 days
The deadline by which the meeting must be rated
Production configuration read 16/08/2026 · match_feedback_deadline_days
30 days
The margin after which the system checks a Matching Agreement
Rule declared in the Founding Charter v1.2
924
Ratings collected in the last thirty days
Read 16/08/2026 · rolling 30-day window, Scouting_Match excluded
6%
Matches that get no response at all. The uncomfortable number, published on purpose
Last 30 days as of 16/08/2026 · was 10%, same measurement method
This law has a consequence the others don't: it forces the discipline to submit itself to the judgement of the numbers, even when they don't suit it. Every measure, with its window and its method, is on the evidence.
Why it's a ring
Time works for the discipline, not against it
Almost every acquisition system gets worse with use: the channel saturates, the cost rises, the return falls. This one does the opposite, and the reason is structural.
Every meeting held produces two ratings. Every rating corrects two people's reliability estimate. Every correction changes how all of their future connections are calculated — including the ones with people they've never met.
The result is that the quality of the second beat doesn't depend on how good the algorithm is: it depends on how many laps the system has already run. It's why the technology gets copied in six months and the history of the data never does.
There's also the other side of the coin, and it belongs in the same breath: the flywheel only turns if people close the fourth beat. A match with no rating is a wasted lap — the meeting happened, but the system learned nothing.
That's why the method doesn't ask for an outcome but for a signal, and it asks for it within a deadline. It isn't bureaucracy: it's the only maintenance this engine requires.
Without measurement there's no science, there's anecdote.
The first step
The method, applied to your company
The method's first beat is the measure, and you can take that measure yourself: AIRA-SCAN© is ten questions and three minutes, no registration. It tells you where the relational capital your business already has stands, and where the value gets stuck.
Then the extended report arrives by email and within one working day a person calls you: you look at the result together and assess whether the AIRA-DX© Stoic Analysis makes sense for your company. It's free and limited to twelve a week, so it's not owed to whoever does the check-up: it's a decision made by both of you.
Looking for the vocabulary instead? It's in the glossary. Would rather just talk? The number is 0549 888808.