TPS 1.0 — Official Specification + Research Revision A

Executive definition

The TIGEE Proportion Score is an evidence-informed, standardized framework for evaluating visible body proportional harmony. It combines published anthropometric and aesthetic-preference research with clearly identified TIGEE-developed scoring metrics.

Locked principle

TPS measures proportion — not general attractiveness. Size is not the objective. Proportional harmony is the objective.

What TPS is not: a beauty score, a desirability score, a fitness score, a body-size score, an age score, or a health assessment. It does not determine whether a body is natural, surgically augmented, or digitally edited from appearance alone.

TPS rewards proportional relationships. Larger glutes, smaller waists, thicker thighs, or greater muscularity do not automatically produce higher scores.
TPS evaluates only the morphology visible in the available evidence, and reports evidence quality separately from the score.
The scoring standard is fixed before a subject is evaluated. Thresholds are never moved to preserve an expected result.

Status & evidence classes

TPS 1.0 is an official TIGEE scoring architecture, but its exact weights and several geometric thresholds are TIGEE-developed hypotheses rather than established scientific constants. Published literature informs the system; it does not validate every weight or cutoff. Every claim in this specification carries an evidence class.

A — Repeated / strong B — Supported / context-dependent C — Emerging D — TIGEE-developed

Class	Meaning
A	Finding has substantial or repeated empirical support relevant to TPS.
B	Published support exists, but population, stimulus, view, or method materially affects interpretation.
C	Promising quantitative or aesthetic evidence exists but requires further replication or adaptation.
D	A TPS-specific definition, weight, threshold, index, or scoring rule created by TIGEE and awaiting validation.

Required public description

TPS is an evidence-informed aesthetic morphology framework combining published anthropometric findings with standardized TIGEE-developed scoring metrics. It is not a medically validated diagnostic instrument, and its proprietary weights are not established scientific constants.

Core architecture

Six domains, each scored 0.00–10.00, combined by fixed weights. D — weights are TIGEE-developed

WHC

Waist–Hip Contrast

25%

How strongly and harmoniously does the torso narrow into the hip complex?

Glute Projection

20%

How effectively does the buttock project posteriorly relative to the lumbar and pelvic framework?

Glute Shape

15%

How balanced and coherent is gluteal volume distribution and contour?

GTT

Glute–Thigh Transition

15%

How harmoniously does the lower glute resolve into the proximal thigh?

Leg Proportionality

10%

Do thigh mass, taper, knee/calf continuity, and leg length support the silhouette?

ULB

Upper–Lower Balance

15%

Does the upper torso appropriately balance the pelvis, hips, glutes, and legs?

TPS = 0.25(WHC) + 0.20(GP) + 0.15(GS) + 0.15(GTT) + 0.10(LP) + 0.15(ULB)

No seventh domain

"Overall Harmony" is not a separately scored domain. The weighted TPS is the harmony result. Adding one would double-count.

Measurement vocabulary

Physical measurements, photographic ratios, and TPS scores are three different things. Conflating them is the most common failure mode in body-proportion analysis.

Code	Name	Type	Definition
WHR	Waist-to-Hip Ratio	Physical ratio	Verified waist circumference ÷ verified hip circumference.
WHWR	Waist-to-Hip Width Ratio	Photo ratio	Visible waist width ÷ visible maximum hip width on a sufficiently standardized front or rear image.
WHC	Waist–Hip Contrast	TPS score	Composite domain integrating dimensional contrast, contour curvature, and proportional integration.
RP	Relative Projection	Photo metric	Posterior glute projection normalized to a defined body reference dimension.
PVI	Projection Vertical Index	TPS index	Vertical location of maximal glute projection within the defined gluteal region.
SHR	Shoulder-to-Hip Width Ratio	Photo ratio	Visible shoulder width ÷ visible hip width.
LBR	Leg-to-Body Ratio	Descriptor	Defined leg length ÷ defined body/height reference. Landmark protocol must accompany the value.
TPS	TIGEE Proportion Score	Composite	Weighted 0–10 result across the six official domains.

Locked measurement rule

Never infer inches or centimeters from an ordinary photograph. Pixel or normalized-width ratios may be calculated because ratios can be scale-independent under appropriate imaging conditions — but they remain labeled photographic measurements and are never represented as circumferences.

Unit 1 — Waist–Hip Contrast

WHC evaluates the strength and geometry of the waist-to-hip silhouette. WHR is an important descriptor, but WHC deliberately goes beyond it: identical ratios can produce visibly different contours.

WHC = 0.35(M) + 0.45(C) + 0.20(I)

Subunit	Weight	Definition
M — Magnitude	35%	Dimensional waist-to-hip contrast using verified WHR and/or standardized WHWR as available.
C — Curvature	45%	Geometry and continuity of the lateral waist-to-hip outline; captures information a single ratio loses.
I — Integration	20%	Whether the contrast integrates coherently with torso, pelvis, and total silhouette rather than appearing abrupt or disconnected.

Descriptive WHR reference bands B

Verified WHR	Descriptive interpretation — not an automatic score
0.60–0.64	Extreme waist–hip contrast.
0.65–0.70	Central high-harmony reference region, supported by classic WHR work and glute-specific preference studies.
0.71–0.74	Strong contrast.
0.75–0.79	Moderate contrast.
0.80–0.84	Mild contrast.
0.85+	Low contrast relative to the TPS reference morphology.

Rejected rule

TPS explicitly rejects "lower WHR = automatically better." A very low ratio can still lose WHC points if curvature or integration is poor.

The curvature concept C

TPS treats the visible side boundary of the torso and hip as a contour x = f(y), where y is vertical position and x is lateral distance from the centerline. Hübner and Ufken (2024) found a curvature-based measure plus body width explained 92% of variance in attractiveness ratings in their line-drawing experiment, versus 63% for WHR plus width. This supports treating curvature as distinct from ratio — it does not validate the 45% weight, which remains Class D.

Unit 2 — Glute Projection

Projection is distinct from size and volume: a large glute can have mediocre relative projection, while a smaller glute can project strongly.

GP = 0.50(RP) + 0.30(PL) + 0.20(PI)

Subunit	Weight	Definition
RP — Relative Projection	50%	Magnitude of posterior displacement normalized to a defined lumbar, pelvic, or body reference.
PL — Projection Location	30%	Vertical location of maximal posterior projection. PVI is the preferred descriptor.
PI — Projection Integration	20%	Continuity of the lumbar-to-glute and glute-to-upper-thigh profile around the projected mass.

Projection Vertical Index D

With GT as the top of the standardized gluteal region, GB its bottom, and GPt the vertical level of maximal posterior projection:

PVI = (GPt − GT) ÷ (GB − GT)

PVI	Working location descriptor
< 0.40	Strongly high maximal projection.
0.40–0.45	Moderately high.
0.45–0.55	Centered / middle region.
0.55–0.60	Moderately low.
> 0.60	Strongly low.

Published preference research supports middle-buttock maximal projection and a 50:50 vertical ratio as a favored configuration B, but the exact 0.45–0.55 band is TIGEE-developed.

Projection magnitude

Gluteal morphology literature has used projection ratios and reported an aesthetic criterion of ratio ≥ 2 in one young Chinese female sample. TPS does not treat 2.0 as "perfect" without preserving the exact anatomical landmarks and method from the source. Until the landmark protocol is finalized, RP is scored from standardized lateral geometry and clearly labeled as TPS methodology.

Unit 3 — Glute Shape

GS = 0.25(U) + 0.30(MG) + 0.20(L) + 0.15(LC) + 0.10(SY)

Subunit	Weight	Definition
U — Upper-pole fullness	25%	Presence and proportionality of superior gluteal volume.
MG — Mid-glute fullness	30%	Central gluteal fullness and continuity.
L — Lower-pole fullness	20%	Completion of the lower contour without disproportionate descent or abrupt loss of volume.
LC — Lateral contour	15%	Outer hip and glute contour, and the transition around maximum width.
SY — Bilateral symmetry	10%	Left-right correspondence in level, shape, and visible volume.

No shape-category shortcut

Round and A-shaped forms have received strong preference in published samples, but cultural and population variation exists. GS scores distribution and harmony — it does not assign "round = 10."

Unit 4 — Glute–Thigh Transition

GTT evaluates contour continuity rather than muscularity itself: whether glute volume resolves into the proximal thigh in a visually coherent way.

GTT = 0.35(CT) + 0.25(IF) + 0.20(LT) + 0.20(TM)

Subunit	Weight	Definition
CT — Contour transition	35%	Smoothness and coherence from lower glute into proximal thigh.
IF — Infragluteal fold	25%	Fold position, extent, and proportional relationship to the gluteal region.
LT — Lower-pole taper	20%	How lower gluteal volume narrows or resolves toward the fold and thigh.
TM — Thigh match	20%	Whether proximal thigh width and mass visually support the gluteal complex.

Muscular separation is not automatically a defect. GTT asks only whether separation, fold geometry, lower-pole descent, or width mismatch disrupts continuity. This is where a large glute can still score poorly — if it appears visually detached from the leg.

Unit 5 — Leg Proportionality

LP = 0.35(HT) + 0.25(TT) + 0.20(KC) + 0.20(LL)

Subunit	Weight	Definition
HT — Hip-to-thigh relationship	35%	Relative thigh width and mass compared with hips and the gluteal complex.
TT — Thigh taper	25%	Progressive contour from proximal thigh toward the knee.
KC — Knee/calf continuity	20%	Whether knee and calf proportions support the leg silhouette.
LL — Leg-length integration	20%	How visible leg length relates to torso and overall body proportions.

Neither thin nor muscular by default

LP does not reward thinness, muscularity, or large thighs on their own. Quantitative thigh research supports analyzing width, taper, and angles, but also notes substantial population and BMI effects. C

Unit 6 — Upper–Lower Balance

ULB = 0.40(SH) + 0.30(TB) + 0.30(VI)

Subunit	Weight	Definition
SH — Shoulder–hip relationship	40%	Relative visible shoulder and hip width. SHR may be recorded as a descriptor.
TB — Torso–bottom balance	30%	Visual mass relationship between upper torso and lower body.
VI — Vertical integration	30%	How torso length, pelvis position, leg length, and overall vertical segmentation integrate.

ULB is what prevents TPS from collapsing into a lower-body-only score. Exceptional WHC, GP, and GS can coexist with a low ULB if the total silhouette reads as materially top-heavy or bottom-heavy.

Universal scoring anchors

Score	Classification	Operational meaning
9.50–10.00	Reference / Exceptional	Essentially no meaningful departure from the defined reference morphology for that unit in the available evidence. 10.00 must be rare.
9.00–9.49	Elite	Very strong proportional performance with only minor deviation.
8.00–8.99	Strong	Clearly strong morphology with a visible but limited proportional compromise.
7.00–7.99	Good	Above-average harmony with one or more meaningful imbalances.
6.00–6.99	Moderate	Several strengths, but clear proportional limitations.
5.00–5.99	Mixed / Neutral	No dominant harmony or discordance relative to the reference.
4.00–4.99	Weak	Substantial departure from reference relationships.
0.00–3.99	Major departure	Strong and repeated discordance relative to the reference morphology.

On decimal precision

Decimals are allowed, but they must not imply precision beyond the evidence. A 9.12 derived from ordinary social-media photographs is a model output, not a laboratory measurement.

Confidence grade

Evidence quality is reported alongside the score, never inside it.

Grade	Name	Minimum interpretation
A	Measurement Grade	Standardized front, rear, and lateral imagery; minimal perspective and pose distortion; anatomical landmarks visible; verified measurements where used.
B	Analysis Grade	Multiple useful views with manageable ordinary posing or photographic variation.
C	Estimate Grade	Limited views and/or aggressive posing, heels, compression or apparel effects, lens distortion, inconsistent camera height, or substantial uncertainty.
D	Non-scoreable	Evidence too compromised for a formal TPS. Qualitative discussion may be provided without an authoritative score.

Confidence never modifies the score

An 8.94 at Confidence C stays 8.94. A subject is not mathematically penalized because the available photography was poor. Report as: TPS 8.94 / 10 — Confidence B.

Standard image protocol

Preferred evidence set: front, rear, and true lateral views.
Neutral or minimally posed stance for primary measurements.
Camera distance and focal length that minimize wide-angle body-shape distortion.
Consistent camera height across views, approximately centered on the region being measured.
Feet and pelvis as symmetrical and neutral as practical in front and rear views.
Social-media images may still be analyzed — but ratios must be labeled photographic, and confidence must reflect the limitations.

Factors that reduce confidence

Aggressive lumbar arching, hip popping, torso twisting, heels, compression garments, and clothing that obscures landmarks all lower the grade rather than adjusting the score.

Never inferred

Surgical history, implants, fat transfer, digital editing, and medical status are never inferred from appearance. They are recorded only when independently verified.

Analyst workflow

Identify the subject and evidence set; note whether measurements are verified or photographic.
Assign a preliminary confidence grade based on image quality and standardization.
Record raw descriptors and ratios before scoring: WHR if verified, WHWR if measurable, PVI and RP if a valid lateral view exists, SHR and LBR where appropriate.
Score each subunit against the fixed reference morphology; document visible evidence and uncertainty.
Calculate each domain from its subunit weights.
Calculate the final TPS using the six fixed domain weights.
Run the consistency check: no double-counting, no attractiveness adjustment, no size bonus, no ethnicity-based adjustment.
Report score, classification, confidence, key strengths, key compromises, and limitations.
If evidence is D-grade, do not publish an authoritative numerical TPS.

Required output schema

Every analysis returns at minimum these fields. Missing data is marked unavailable, never invented.

SUBJECT:
TPS VERSION: 1.0
EVIDENCE SET:
CONFIDENCE: A / B / C / D

— RAW / SUPPORTING MEASUREMENTS —
Verified WHR:
Photographic WHWR:
Relative Projection (RP):
Projection Vertical Index (PVI):
Shoulder-to-Hip Width Ratio (SHR):
Leg-to-Body Ratio (LBR):
Measurement limitations:

— DOMAIN SCORES —
1. WHC __/10    M: __   C: __   I: __
2. GP  __/10    RP: __  PL: __  PI: __
3. GS  __/10    U: __   MG: __  L: __   LC: __  SY: __
4. GTT __/10    CT: __  IF: __  LT: __  TM: __
5. LP  __/10    HT: __  TT: __  KC: __  LL: __
6. ULB __/10    SH: __  TB: __  VI: __

— RESULT —
FINAL TPS:
CLASSIFICATION:
CONFIDENCE:
KEY PROPORTIONAL STRENGTHS:
KEY PROPORTIONAL COMPROMISES:
UNCERTAINTY / PHOTO LIMITATIONS:
EVIDENCE-BASED VS TIGEE-DEVELOPED NOTES:

Non-negotiable interpretation rules

Never

Inflate a score because the subject is attractive, famous, popular, surgically enhanced, muscular, voluptuous, or personally preferred.
Penalize muscularity, body fat, or size in isolation. Only their proportional consequences within a defined unit are scored.
Treat the lowest WHR or the largest glute as the optimum.
Convert photographic pixel widths into claimed inches, centimeters, or circumferences.
Use ethnicity as a scoring modifier. Population research may contextualize findings; the standard itself stays fixed.
Count the same visual feature twice across domains when a more specific domain already captures it.
Add an Overall Harmony score. The weighted TPS is the harmony result.
Claim TPS is a medically validated diagnostic instrument, or that its weights are established scientific constants.

Always

Distinguish published findings from TIGEE-developed methodology.
Preserve uncertainty. When an image cannot support a measurement, say so.
Apply the same rubric to every subject, without exception.

Design intent

TPS exists to make proportional analysis more consistent — not to disguise subjective preference as objective science.

Research foundation

Published findings inform TPS. They do not automatically justify a TPS weight — proprietary weights remain Class D until validated.

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307.

Classic WHR evidence; supports WHR as a meaningful body-shape cue. A

Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women's attractiveness: the critical role of waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 4(3), 297–321.

Further foundational WHR work. A

Wong, W.W., Motakef, S., Lin, Y., & Gupta, S.C. (2016). Redefining the Ideal Buttocks: A Population Analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 137(6), 1739–1747.

1,146 responses; posterior-view WHR 0.65 most preferred, lateral 0.70; middle/50:50 lateral projection favored. B

Hübner, R., & Ufken, E.S. (2024). Curviness is a better predictor of a woman's body attractiveness than the waist-to-hip ratio. Scientific Reports, 14, 23081.

Supports curvature as distinct from WHR; curvature plus width explained 92% of variance versus 63% for WHR plus width. C

Cao, S. et al. (2018). Character of Gluteal Region Morphology in Young Chinese Females. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 81(6S Suppl 1), S76–S78.

Gluteal morphology classifications; 37.9% of the sample met the paper's aesthetic projection criterion of ratio ≥ 2. B

Suwajo, P. et al. (2024). The ideal gluteal contouring in Thai-transwomen: cross-sectional descriptive study.

Posterior WHR 0.65, lateral 0.70; round and A-shape preferences; moderate/middle projection preference in the sampled population. B

Chatzioglou, G.N. et al. (2024). Analysis of the Thigh Aesthetic Profiles: One of Physical Ideal Body Proportions. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 48, 2294–2305.

Standardized photogrammetry and quantitative thigh ratios and angles; highlights BMI and population dependence. C

Raposio, E. et al. (2024). Relationship between the Ideal Female Buttock and the Golden Ratio. PRS Global Open.

Geometric approach to gluteal proportion. C

Bruno, A. et al. (2025). Beyond the Brazilian Butt Lift: How to Objectively Measure Gluteal Augmentation Outcomes.

Standardized 2D photographs with fixed anatomical landmarks to quantify contour change — supports the feasibility of photographic quantification. C

Arian, H. et al. (2023). Cosmetic Surgery and the Diversity of Cultural and Ethnic Perceptions of Female Beauty.

Context for why TPS holds one fixed standard rather than applying population-specific modifiers. B

Mallucci, P., & Branford, O.A. (2011/2012). Concepts in Aesthetic Breast Dimensions: Analysis of the Ideal Breast.

Natural-breast morphology; defines a 45:55 upper/lower pole relationship, nipple angulation, upper-pole contour, and lower-pole convexity within a Western media-selected sample. B

Lee, H.J., & Ock, J.J. (2019). An Ideal Female Breast Shape in Balance With the Body Proportions of Asians.

Body-relative breast landmark framework linking breast width, shoulders, upper-buttock width, vertical torso position, lower-pole height, and projection. B

Kelly, J.D. et al. Public Perception of Ideal Breast Shape.

Crowdsourced preference study across multiple breast/body characteristics; supports projection and body-relative width as measurable aesthetic variables. B

Kelly, J.D. et al. (2022). Validation of Ideal Breast Characteristics With Breast Augmentation Patients.

Real-patient validation of projection proportion, breast width to shoulders, breast width to upper buttock, and nipple direction. A candidate evidence

Sandberg, L.J. et al. (2020). An Aesthetic Factor Priority List of the Female Breast.

3D/surgeon-rated factor-priority work; lower-pole shape, upper-pole shape, and breast height were among the strongest correlates with overall breast aesthetic rating in the study. B

Lewin, R. et al. (2016). The Aesthetically Ideal Position of the Nipple–Areola Complex on the Breast.

Controlled NAC-position preference research; supports treating nipple position separately from nipple direction. B

Bekisz, J.M. et al. (2023). Aesthetic Characteristics of the Ideal Female Breast.

Real-patient 2D/3D analysis; adds support for projected contour, upper-pole fullness, and the limitations of raw volume as a stand-alone aesthetic target. B

Research Revision A — breast & upper body

Scoring status: TPS 1.0 remains unchanged. Research Revision A expands what the Master tracks without authorizing new score weights. A variable may be standardized for measurement before it is authorized for scoring.

Current-version firewall

No existing model score changes because of Research Revision A. A scoring change requires a numbered TPS revision, a frozen rubric, and full archive migration.

Current breast / upper-body candidate constructs

Code	Construct	Current evidence read	TPS status
BPP	Breast Projection Proportion	Repeated preference support plus real-patient validation; projection also survives independent clinical-image research.	A candidate · measure, do not score yet
BWSR	Breast Width : Shoulder Width	Body-relative metric supported across Lee/Ock and Kelly work; exact preferred value varies by sample/method.	A candidate · measure, do not score yet
BWBR	Breast Width : Upper-Buttock Width	Direct upper/lower integration variable with strong association in Kelly real-patient validation.	A candidate · measure, do not score yet
LPS	Lower-Pole Shape	Mallucci morphology plus Sandberg factor-priority work independently point to lower-pole geometry as important.	A candidate · protocol needed
UPS	Upper-Pole Shape / Fullness	Supported, but preferred contour changes across surgeon, patient, population, and stimulus context.	B context-sensitive
BHT	Breast Height / Vertical Geometry	Sandberg and body-relative studies support vertical geometry as meaningful.	B protocol in development
NAC	Nipple–Areola Position / Direction	Measurable and preference-relevant, but appears secondary to larger geometry in some datasets and varies by study.	B secondary descriptor

Reference findings that must remain definition-specific

Mallucci 45:55 describes upper- versus lower-pole vertical height around the nipple meridian in three-quarter-profile natural breasts. It is not interchangeable with other upper/lower breast ratios.
Lee & Ock / Kelly ratios compare breast width with shoulders or upper-buttock width and use their own standardized image constructions. Exact 100% versus 105% preferences are treated as context-sensitive, not universal constants.
Size is not the construct. Current evidence supports shape, projection, position, and body integration more strongly than a simple “larger is better” rule.

Research rule

Preference evidence, population anatomy, measurement methodology, and TIGEE scoring decisions are stored as separate evidence types. A published preference does not automatically become a TPS target or weight.

TPS 2.0 construct map

TPS 2.0 is a research architecture, not an active scoring version. The purpose of the construct map is to identify what the current Master should keep, what is incomplete, what new morphology deserves consideration, and what should remain outside a static proportion score.

Decision	Constructs	Reason
KEEP	Waist–hip contrast; glute projection; glute shape; glute–thigh transition; leg proportionality	These remain relevant static morphology constructs, subject to future calibration and reliability testing.
EXPAND / REDEFINE	Upper–Lower Balance	Current ULB captures shoulders, torso-bottom mass, and vertical integration but does not resolve breast/body geometry with the same detail used for the lower body.
NEW CANDIDATES	Breast projection; breast-to-shoulder width; breast-to-upper-buttock width; pole geometry; breast height / placement	These have sufficient evidence to enter standardized research measurement, but not yet final TPS weighting.
EXCLUDE FROM STATIC TPS	Gait attractiveness; gaze attention; surgical status; skin texture; general desirability	Interesting aesthetic research, but conceptually different from static proportional morphology or too indirect to justify a TPS score.

Architectures under consideration

Expanded ULB

6 domains

Keep TPS compact but redesign Upper–Lower Balance to include measurable breast/body integration.

Breast / Torso Domain

7 domains

Separate breast morphology from whole-body integration, with safeguards against double-counting.

Whole-Body Rebuild

TBD

Reconstruct TPS from the whole body outward rather than adding upper-body variables to a lower-body-heavy architecture.

No weights yet

Constructs are settled before weights. Weights are frozen before models are re-scored. The archive never drives the rubric.

Open the public TPS 2.0 research track →

Version control & roadmap

TPS 1.0 remains the current scoring version. Research Revision A expands the Master research scope without changing the six active domain weights. Future scoring revisions are numbered and must document every changed weight, definition, landmark, threshold, and archive-migration consequence.

Version history

Research Revision A

AUG 2026 · NON-SCORING

Research scope expanded. Breast and upper-body evidence matrix, candidate constructs, and TPS 2.0 construct-map process added. No TPS 1.0 weight, threshold, domain score, or existing model score changed.

TPS 1.0

CURRENT SCORING

Architecture locked. Six domains and twenty sub-scores fixed with published weights. Evidence-class labeling (A–D) introduced across all claims. Confidence grade formally separated from the score. Measurement vocabulary defined to distinguish verified circumference, photographic width ratio, and TPS score.

Prototype

PRE-1.0

Early scoring experiments predating the locked architecture. Any result produced before TPS 1.0 is classified as prototype output and is not comparable to a 1.0 score.

Archive migration policy

Historical scores are preserved. A TPS 1.0 result remains archived as TPS 1.0 after a newer version is released.
New rules propagate through the index. Every previously scored subject with sufficient evidence is re-evaluated under the new locked version.
No silent conversions. Unless a future specification explicitly validates a mathematical conversion, original evidence is reanalyzed under the new rubric.
Insufficient evidence stays insufficient. If legacy images cannot support a new required construct, the record is marked reassessment required rather than filled with invented data.

Open specification tasks

Validation. Score a sufficiently large and diverse image set using multiple blinded analysts; measure inter-rater reliability and test whether geometric metrics reduce subjective variance.
Calibration. Develop landmark diagrams for front, rear, and lateral views and establish repeatable photo-measurement procedures.
Data retention. Retain raw measurements and subunit scores — not only final scores — so future revisions can be recalculated without re-rating every subject.
Curvature. Develop and validate a TIGEE Curvature Index before replacing structured C scoring with an automated geometric metric.
Projection. Finalize RP anatomical landmarks before publishing a universal numeric RP target.
Anchor rubric. Define the exact 0–10 anchor descriptions for Waist–Hip Contrast and Glute Projection.
Breast landmark protocol. Finalize standardized SN, nipple, IMF, breast-border, and projection landmarks for photographic research measurements.
Construct saturation. Continue source review until new high-quality studies stop materially changing the candidate construct map.

The TIGEEProportion Score