You’re looking for steadiness with a spark.
You want attraction without having to keep a relationship moving on your own. Your mirror points toward a relationship that makes room for both closeness and an independent life. The most useful shift is not a new checklist of status markers. It is paying attention to whether warm words turn into reliable, ordinary behavior—and noticing how you feel when you no longer have to do all the arranging.
Illustrative sample: Maya is fictional. This is a written example, not a real person’s AI report.
YOUR PREFERENCES, IMAGINED
Your partner portrait.
A fictional adult man in his mid-thirties, with a warm smile and relaxed contemporary clothing, outdoors on a softly lit city walk. An understated editorial illustration in warm ivory and muted rose. No real identity or future-partner prediction is implied.
A fictional adult illustration inspired by your preferences. It is not a prediction, a real match or an image of a future partner. The brief is sent to OpenAI only when you choose to generate. Your uploaded photo is never used to generate this face.
Download illustrationIllustrative image generated with OpenAI GPT Image for this fictional example.
THREE THINGS TO TAKE WITH YOU
- 01
Before your next date, choose one boundary around plans that you can express calmly and follow through on.
- 02
After a date, write two short lists: what actually happened, and what you are hoping it means.
- 03
Ask about relationship intentions, then give yourself time to observe whether behavior supports the answer.
What you bring
You describe a life with work, friendships and caring responsibilities already in it. That gives you something concrete to share with a partner, and something worth protecting. Your stated preference for independence suggests that an enjoyable relationship would complement that life, rather than require you to give it up. Your income is one reported resource. It does not tell us your disposable budget, the demands on your time or the quality of a future relationship. Your family’s property is not your personal spending money. Those details remain separate.
The relationship you are seeking
You are asking for a committed relationship in which attraction and reliability can coexist. There is room to be flexible about professional status or height. There is much less room for repeated behavior that makes your time feel provisional. Your openness to children is a subject for an explicit conversation, not a decision already agreed with someone. A useful early discussion would explore what each person wants, what remains undecided and how a shared timeline could fit both lives.
Your dating mirror
As a hypothesis to explore, picture a man in your preferred adult age range who is building a life in Chicago, can support himself and has space for a committed relationship. His clothing, profession and exact height are less central to your own description than warmth, attraction and the way he follows through. An ordinary week together might include separately chosen interests, a plan you both helped arrange and an unhurried weekend. This is an imagined relationship to test in real life—not an available person, a match guarantee or the maximum you can expect. A higher salary would not establish his reliability.
The tradeoff worth noticing
The tension you describe is between the feeling of chemistry and the evidence of consistency. Keeping space open for someone can feel hopeful. It also makes it harder to see what that person is contributing when your flexibility fills every gap. You do not have to decide that spontaneous people are unsuitable. Instead, distinguish occasional changes with clear communication from a recurring pattern you find unacceptable. Nor do you have to trade attraction for stability: both belong in your exploration, even if neither can be proven by a first date.
What the evidence can tell you
The account you shared contains a mismatch between a stated desire for something serious and limited advance planning. It does not tell us why he behaved that way or whether every cancelled plan reflected the same cause. His intentions remain uncertain. Your experience of the pattern still matters. There is no current candidate to assess here. With someone new, notice whether plans become specific, whether changes are communicated and repaired, and whether you both make space for each other. These are things to observe, not a script that proves anyone’s character.
Your next chapter
Try making your boundary concrete before the next situation becomes emotionally complicated. Describe what repeated cancellations mean for you and what you would need to continue. This leaves room for an honest response while keeping the decision about your participation with you. After a date, write down what happened separately from the story you are tempted to build around it. Then consider both attraction and ease: did you enjoy the person, and did the interaction leave room for your needs? A reflection can help you notice a pattern. It cannot replace seeing how two people treat each other over time.
THE ORIGINAL PRODUCT RULES
The numbers, with their limits.
An experimental product index using the original Chinese mini-program’s rules. It is not your worth, a percentile, a scientific attractiveness score, a relationship forecast or the financial level of a partner you can obtain. These weights have not been validated for Western dating.
Rule index · possible range 0–100
Missing inputs remain intervals. They have not been guessed or scored as zero.
Current currency reference rates could not be verified. Financial fields are excluded from the calculation for now; no conversion was guessed.
Show the scoring breakdown
| Factor | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective appearance | 30% | 21 |
| Height | 5% | 4.8 |
| Age | 15% | 11.9 |
| Personal net assetsNot supplied / not comparable | 10% | 0–10 |
| Annual incomeNot supplied / not comparable | 10% | 0–10 |
| Income stability | 5% | 5 |
| Family net assetsNot supplied / not comparable | 10% | 0–10 |
| Available family support | 5% | 2.5 |
| Education | 10% | 7 |
Appearance uses your own optional self-rating. Neither is objective beauty. Weight, parents’ occupations and partner expectations do not add points. Negative net assets use a scoring floor of zero but remain negative in your profile.
Explore the original equal-score scenarios
These are mathematical examples from the mini-program’s male scoring rules. They are not real people, recommendations or a promise of mutual attraction. They do not apply your personal preferences as filters. The entire combination is scored together; you cannot retain only its financial attributes.
Some scoring inputs are unknown. No male scenario has been filled in by guessing.
City, children, relationship history, availability, personal values and his preferences remain outside this calculation. These CNY examples retain the original Chinese model’s monetary anchors and are not local market estimates.
Method, origin and currency basis
The original mini-program uses different product-defined weights for women and men. Its age, height and financial anchors are design choices, not population norms. This web version keeps those rules visible rather than presenting them as a validated compatibility test.
Reported money is in USD. CNY inputs use the original CNY scoring table; other currencies require a verified reference rate. Currency conversion does not adjust for purchasing power, local wages or dating culture. Tax bases are kept as stated.
The original project cites Xu (2025), a Chinese survey experiment for factors considered, not the exact weights or an English-market validation. ECB currency reference.
AI writes the narrative; program code calculates the score. Exact quotations are checked against the information you provided. This does not guarantee that every interpretation is correct.
Content: mirror-web-20261026-v1
Scoring: product-index-20261025-v3
Narrative: written illustrative example
Current illustration model: OpenAI gpt-image-2.5-flare
Review the profile used for this report
- What should we call you?
- Maya
- Your age
- 32
- Where do you live? City and country
- Chicago, USA
- Currency for all financial answers
- USD
- Height in centimetres
- 168
- Weight and unit, if you want to share
- Not provided
- Your own appearance rating, 1–10 (optional)
- 7
- Relationship status
- Single, not seeing anyone
- What would you most like clarity on?
- I want to stop confusing chemistry with consistency.
- Marriage history
- Never married
- Children
- No children
- What do you want around commitment, marriage or children?
- A committed relationship; open to children after discussing it together.
- Education
- Bachelor’s degree
- Your work and career stage
- Product designer
- Income stability
- Relatively stable income
- Your annual income (optional)
- 95000
- Income basis
- Before tax
- Your personal net assets (optional)
- 60000
- Housing, savings and debt: what matters?
- I rent. My savings and debts are separate from my parents’ home.
- Family net assets, if known (optional)
- Not provided
- Support available to you
- Primarily emotional support
- Parents’ work or circumstances (optional)
- Not provided
- What support is confirmed, and what is only possible?
- Not provided
- Family, caring or financial responsibilities
- I help my mother with appointments.
- Your routine, social life and ideal shared life
- Work, long walks, friends and a slower weekend.
- Your needs, values and non-negotiable boundaries
- Kindness, consistency and room for an independent life.
- Preferred adult age range
- 30–40
- Location and willingness to relocate
- Chicago; relocation is not my current plan.
- Appearance and style you’re drawn to (optional)
- Warm smile, relaxed style; attraction matters but no fixed type.
- His family situation, marriage history or children
- Not provided
- His income: preference and tax basis
- Financially self-supporting, no specific salary threshold.
- His assets or housing: personal or family?
- Not provided
- Your top priorities—and where you are open to compromise
- I can be flexible on job title and height. I cannot accept repeated cancelled plans.
- A relationship experience or pattern you’ve noticed
- I kept making space for someone who cancelled at the last minute.
- What actually happened? What feedback did you receive?
- He said he wanted something serious, but we rarely made plans in advance.
- People you’re considering—or “no one right now”
- No one right now.
- Anything we should understand before we talk?
- Not provided
Method and sources
An experimental product index using the original Chinese mini-program’s rules. It is not your worth, a percentile, a scientific attractiveness score, a relationship forecast or the financial level of a partner you can obtain. These weights have not been validated for Western dating.
Confirmed profile inputs feed the original programmatic nine-factor scoring table. Missing information remains an interval. AI writes the narrative; exact quotations are checked against user-provided material. The optional portrait is fictional.
Currency: USD. No verified conversion attached; non-CNY financial fields remain unscored.
Sources: Xu (2025), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-025-00245-z; European Central Bank reference rates. Content: mirror-web-20261026-v1. Scoring: product-index-20261025-v3. Generated: 10/26/2026.