For coaches and facilitators
An instrument that assumes there is a professional in the room.
Most team assessments are built to be self-serve and then sold through practitioners anyway. Facets is built the other way round: the facilitator has a real role in the product, with information the participants do not get and a decision to make before anything is released.
What you get that nobody else does
A release gate
When you are named as the facilitator on a team, nothing reaches a person about themselves until you approve it — not just the notes that trip a check. You see every note, the check results, and why anything was flagged, and you decide: release, hold, or regenerate. Without a named facilitator, notes that pass their checks and carry no routing flag go out automatically; with one, none do.
Signals the team never sees
Which raters showed no variance at all. Who is systematically generous or harsh, so you can read their scores properly. Pairs whose ratings of each other are unusual once both people’s general tendencies are accounted for — often the most useful thing in the whole dataset, and never shown to participants. This view is readable by the named facilitator alone: not by the team lead, not by the workspace owner, and not by us. If no facilitator is named, nobody can open it.
A confidential channel
On leadership reviews, raters get a box that goes to you and only to you. It is the route for the thing someone will not put in a survey answer, and it never enters the leader’s brief in any form.
A debrief you did not have to build
A 60-minute agenda generated from the team’s actual results, with discussion prompts and a commitment structure. Use it as written or as a starting point.
On margin, plainly
The dominant instruments in this category sell to practitioners at volume tiers that match their retail volume tiers almost exactly. The practical effect is that certified practitioners carry the client relationship, the delivery risk and the credential cost, and make their money on the day rate rather than on the instrument.
The Practitioner plan is priced so that reselling a run at a normal professional markup leaves the margin with you. That is a deliberate commercial position and the main reason this plan exists.
The Practitioner plan is $89 a month with four runs included; extra runs are $75. The certification is a one-time purchase with a syllabus page of its own.
Certification, for those who want the credential
The certification is a self-paced course in the methodology — the instrument, the measurement rules, the facilitator craft, the ethics — with an exam and a practicum you complete by running a real team end to end. It earns a credential with a public verification page, the certified-practitioner cycle rate, and an optional listing in the practitioner directory. It is optional by design: nothing in the product is or will be locked behind it.
Engagement cycles, for client organizations
The survey line scales past a single team. An engagement cycle asks everyone at a client organization the same questions once and reports the answers as group numbers with error bars — for the organization, each unit, and each manager — with groups too small to report left out rather than quietly included.
Cycles are priced per cycle, by organization size, and practitioners — on the Practitioner plan or certified — run them for clients at 25% off list. A cycle deliberately produces no debrief pack and no individual notes — it tells an organization where to look. The teams that want to change something afterward are exactly the engagement a practitioner is there for.
What to check before you put your name on it
You are the one who will be asked “is this validated?” in front of a client, so here is the answer in advance: not yet. The research the design rests on is published and cited. The instrument itself has not been through a psychometric pilot, and no study shows that using it improves team performance. That will be true of most of what you can buy in this category; the difference is that this is written on the website rather than left for you to discover.
What you can say with a straight face: it is peer-rated rather than self-report, it is behavior-anchored and time-bounded, it suppresses results below three raters, it ships with the structured debrief that the evidence says is the part that actually moves anything, and the instrument you are running is developmental by construction — there is nothing readable for a manager to import into a review, whatever anyone decides later.
Say the next part before your client’s HR director does. Facets also sells manager tools — goals, quarterly bands, written assessments — and they are a performance record. They are a separate product on the same login, and the separation is structural rather than a policy: the only table that references across is the record of a summary the subject chose to share, and nothing reads back through it. You are running the developmental half. It is better to have that sentence ready than to be handed it.
If you would rather wait for the validation study, that is a reasonable position and saying so is welcome. Early practitioners will shape what gets built and what gets measured, which is worth more right now than the license fee.