Skill level can be tracked by your ability to accurately predict your opponents moves and formulate plans to counter them and execute them
so questions from that.
why is style important? is it the style its self thats important or how it came to be?

Re: the feeling. thats the problem i'm running into when i try to teach people stuff. i take alot for granted as know by everyone and i have trouble articulating how "the feeling" work .
i think it works a bit like this. right what can they do to me. then a what would look cool and is possible and will put them down in the ring.

how do we teach style. or guide someone towards one of their own?
can we divide styles up into categories? striker, wrestler like the tiers?
how do you describe someones style if its not easily visible like xbcz and his no grabs?
can we think of style as a game plan or is a game plan just part of it?

what happens if we approach it from the same way a personality profile would.
defensive vs aggressive
risky vs safe
striker vs grappler?
grabs vs no grabs
game plan vs free flow
what other things can we use? then when we know what they kinda are or kinda want to be we can give better move ideas

what moments could we use? how they react to specific attacks?
i don't think your use is the same as mine. its not really meant to be a predictor of what they will do. Its a descriptor of what they are doing. then we can point them towards players who already doing what they do but better.
If we review the last ten replays of someone. we can get a pretty go idea of how they play.
for example you said you are a risk taker. So you would be on the higher end of being a risky player. if we had a line from risky to conservative.
risky<--I------->conservative
and if we can do that why not for other things.
freeflow<---------->forced

so i would propose getting replay dumps of the last ten replays of people figure out what adjectives are applicable. this will rely on an honesty system. got ten replays for me? i'll post as i work things out and see where im going right or wrong.
then once i have enough adjectives i'll see what i can do with it.
i vote its still on topic because if we get this working it would make it easier to match students and teachers. and we could put the method in the tips. or should we make a new thread?

against the same person would mean a better base line. plus how you react to problems.

all it needs to be is auto save turned on play a bunch of games get a section of ten replays in a row. from the recent set. just to provide a snap shot how you played at that time. if you want to play around with the way you play that's fine. ten is only a small sample size so its not all encompassing. and i was only planing to do a surface look at it to start with. just to see if this is any good?

Skill is measured by the players you can beat consistently.

i agree what components let you beat people?
how far can we break that down?

I think what you're looking for is technique versatility. Having razor sharp techniques paired with a high fight IQ makes you adapt and overcome any opposing game plan that the opponent may bring to the table.

what do you think is the best method if someone is trying to help someone improve their fight IQ?