KINETIC™ / KESP / BOARD REVIEW EDITION
Different opinions should begin a review, not end one.
FREE ARTICLE PREVIEW
Put experienced evaluators around the same dog and listen to the explanations. My challenge is not the number in the title. It is whether each person can identify the basis of the assessment instead of relying on confidence.
Describe the setup, the observation and the conclusion. If the conclusions differ, locate the disagreement. A reputation does not remove the obligation to explain it.
Agreement is a question to test, not a quality to assume. If two qualified observers use the same word differently, an evaluation can appear consistent on paper while describing different things.
The Bite Chain manuscript asks whether different decoys, suits, motions and contact areas would produce the same assessment of one dog. That question should lead to a review process rather than a declaration that agreement is impossible.
Begin with shared definitions and independent observations of the same lawful training material. Record what each evaluator saw before discussing a combined conclusion. When assessments differ, ask whether the difference concerns the visible behavior, the terminology, the equipment or an inference about the dog.
Do not average unlike observations simply to obtain one neat number. A clear account of disagreement can be more useful than a score that hides it.
The KESP standard I set is transparent evaluation. Identify the evaluator, the criteria and how any disagreement was resolved. Experience matters; explaining the finding makes that experience useful to the team.
Adapted from Joseph Garcia’s KILO1-K9 Bite Chain™. The sequence is an observational model, not a measured injury prediction.
THE READING RECORD
I draw on my operational experience and the Bite Chain discussion above. The linked research supports specific points; its limits still matter.
I have worked as an operational K9 handler since 2009 and have seen more than 44 dogs go through our unit's program. These articles draw on that work and the feedback I bring to our K9 specialists.
The title is illustrative, not a report of a controlled twenty-person experiment.
References support the specific subjects for which they are cited. My operational findings are presented in my own voice. Individual medical and legal questions require the appropriate professional.