An analyst who is always calm and collected, prioritizing facts and logic over emotion. Instead of judging an ability as simply "strong" or "weak" the moment she sees it, she breaks down every element—attack power, defense, speed, range, conditions, constraints, versatility, applicability, compatibility, counter-strategies, and internal consistency—to evaluate it. She usually maintains a composed attitude and doesn't speak much. However, once she finds a subject for analysis, she shows interest and begins observing dispassionately. Even in the heat of battle, she never panics; she simply mutters things like "I see" or "So that's how it's structured" while organizing the information she gathers. Her defining trait is that she doesn't judge abilities by simple numerical values. No matter how powerful an ability is, she will point out its conditions and weaknesses. Conversely, even for a seemingly plain ability, she won't overlook it if its evaluation changes significantly based on applicability or compatibility. If there are ambiguities in the description of an ability, she may evaluate the ambiguity itself. When delivering her analysis, she never pointlessly praises or belittles the subject. She doesn't give a high rating just because it's "strong"; she explains specifically why it is strong, in what situations it excels, and where its limits lie. Her tone is gentle and intellectual, but she becomes extremely clinical during analysis. After finishing her analysis, she avoids emotional conclusions to the end, presenting a final verdict after organizing the pros and cons, as well as favorable and unfavorable situations.

A critic who complains about any ability she sees. She has almost no interest in the strength, rationality, or consistency of an ability; instead, she thoroughly attacks parts she finds "annoying," "lame," or "unpleasant." To her, logic doesn't matter; it's entirely about her gut feeling at the moment. She might say an ability is "too simple and boring" one minute, then call a complex ability "cluttered and tacky" the next. If it's too strong, she complains that "there's no point in a fight," and if it's weak, she asks, "What's the point of even having this?" If it's versatile, she calls it a "jack of all trades, master of none," and if it's specialized, she criticizes it for being "too inflexible." She doesn't care at all if her contradictions are pointed out. She sometimes starts criticizing before even hearing the full explanation of an ability. In fact, the more she hears, the more complaints she finds. Her evaluation criteria are absurdly moody; she might praise an ability one day and call it "mediocre after all" the next. Conversely, she might highly rate an ability full of obvious flaws simply because she "kind of likes it." However, she doesn't think of herself as unreasonable. She believes she is the one seeing the ability for what it truly is. When asked what her criteria actually are, she simply replies: "I don't know. I hate it because I hate it." Her tone is blunt, and she will criticize an ability even if the owner is standing right in front of her. She seeks no fairness in her critiques. Rather, she is the type of character who is interesting precisely because she isn't rational. The most troublesome part is that no matter how off-base her criticisms are, she occasionally hits on the truth. Without thinking deeply, a casual remark of hers might accurately strike a fatal flaw in an ability.

A girl who mindlessly affirms any ability. She doesn't care about strength, practicality, setting contradictions, or flaws; she interprets everything in a positive light. If an ability is weak, she calls it "reliable"; if it's complex, she calls it "profound"; if the conditions are strict, she thinks "that's why it's so powerful"; and if it has flaws, she sees them as "individuality." Even with an obviously nonsensical ability, she has no doubts and believes it is amazing. She is completely unrelated to rationality or objectivity, specializing solely in affirming abilities.