FAR Affinity: The Tested Party’s Characterization Signal

Definition

FAR affinity is Quartyl’s deterministic signal that maps the tested party’s function families to a characterization profile — the score (the 0–3 affinity, per characterization candidate) that says how strongly the tested party’s FAR (the functions, assets, risks) aligns with the profile (the routine distributor, the service provider, the contract manufacturer, the other characterizations). The affinity is the characterization input: where the study’s report is built, the characterization is derived from the FAR affinity — the profile with the highest affinity is selected, and the justification cites the functions that drove the score — never from a user free-text label. The tested party selection logic (the “less complex entity”) runs on the same FAR facts; the affinity is the computational expression of the alignment, recorded on the study.

FAR affinity, in one computation:
  1. The tested party’s function families (the FAR profile — the functions
     performed, as captured in the tested party setup)
  2. The function-family → characterization affinity scores (0–3, per the
     deterministic mapping — the routine distributor, the service provider,
     the contract manufacturer, the other profiles)
  3. The affinity per candidate (the functions’ votes summed — the score)
  4. The selection (the highest affinity — the characterization, with the
     justification citing the functions that drove it)

The element	The content
The input	The tested party’s function families (the FAR — the functions performed, as captured in the tested party profile)
The mapping	The function-family → characterization affinity scores (the 0–3 per candidate — the deterministic mapping, the routine distributor / the service provider / the contract manufacturer / the other profiles)
The score	The affinity per candidate (the functions’ votes summed — the candidate’s score, the alignment measure)
The selection	The highest affinity — the characterization selected, with the justification citing the functions that drove the score (the record, not the label)
The discipline	The characterization is derived (from the affinity, from the FAR facts) — never a user free-text label (the discipline the report engine enforces)

The working read (the tested party selection and the functional analysis): the FAR affinity is the computational expression of the FAR-to-characterization alignment — the same logic the “less complex entity” selection uses (the functions, assets, risks, the complexity comparison), expressed as the score (the 0–3, per candidate) rather than the narrative. The determinism (the mapping, the scores, the selection — the same FAR facts produce the same characterization, every time) is the point: the characterization is reproducible (the audit trail shows the functions, the scores, the selection), not asserted (the label, the free text). The AI-assisted screening uses the same FAR alignment on the comparables side (the comparable’s FAR against the tested party’s — the comparability signal); the affinity is the tested party’s characterization signal, the screening’s comparability is the comparable’s alignment — the same logic, the two sides of the benchmark.

Example

The tested party (the Indian entity) is set up in Quartyl: the function families captured (the distribution — the purchasing, the inventory, the selling; the inventory ownership; the credit risk borne). The FAR affinity computation: the function families map to the characterization candidates (the routine distributor — the distribution function, the inventory, the limited risk — the affinity 3; the service provider — the services function, not present — the affinity 0; the contract manufacturer — the manufacturing function, not present — the affinity 0). The selection: the highest affinity is the routine distributor (the 3) — the characterization selected, the justification citing the functions (the distribution, the inventory, the credit risk) that drove the score. The report’s characterization block is derived (the affinity, the functions, the selection) — not the user’s label. The tested party selection (the less complex entity, against the supplier) runs on the same FAR facts — the affinity is the characterization signal, the selection is the tested party decision, both on the FAR.

See also

• Functional Analysis (FAR)
• Tested Party Selection
• AI-Assisted Comparable Screening

FAQ

Is the FAR affinity a user input, or a computation? A computation — the deterministic mapping (the function families → the characterization candidates, the 0–3 scores) on the tested party’s FAR profile (the functions, as captured). The user captures the functions (the FAR setup); the affinity is the computation on the functions (the scores, the selection). The discipline: the characterization is derived from the affinity (the functions’ votes, the highest score) — never a user free-text label (the “this is a distributor” assertion, without the functions). The audit trail shows the functions, the scores, the selection — the reproducibility, the record.

How does the FAR affinity differ from the tested party selection? The FAR affinity is the characterization signal (the tested party’s FAR → the characterization profile — the routine distributor, the service provider, the contract manufacturer — the what is the entity). The tested party selection is the selection decision (the which entity is tested — the less complex, the one-sided method’s subject — the selected entity, against the counterparty). The two run on the same FAR facts (the functions, assets, risks) — the affinity is the characterization (the profile, the score), the selection is the tested party (the entity, the complexity). The tested party selection guide has the selection logic; the affinity is the characterization’s computational expression.

Does the FAR affinity appear in the report? Yes — the report’s characterization block (the tested party’s characterization, the profile, the justification) is derived from the FAR affinity — the functions cited, the scores, the selection. The Word master report (the seven-chapter, twelve-annexure report) and the Excel workbook carry the characterization (the profile, the justification) — the derived block (the affinity’s output), not the asserted label. The audit trail (the functions, the scores, the selection) is the record — the reproducibility, the defense.