Often
A high score means closeness arrives with constant monitoring: you notice a change in tone before the other person does, a pause fills with an explanation before there is anything to explain, and the thought that something has shifted turns up ahead of the evidence. This is a learned response, not a diagnosis and not a personality trait — it usually formed where attention genuinely was unpredictable, and it can change. What the scale does not measure is how much you matter to the person beside you: it describes your alarm system, not their feelings. The most useful observation here is that most people score very differently across different relationships.
Sometimes
A middle score describes an alarm that comes on by circumstance rather than by default. Typically it looks like this: with some people you check nothing, and with others — or in particular stretches, early on, at a distance, after an argument that never resolved — you start rereading messages for what changed. This is the most common reading and the most movable one: it answers to a specific person and to what is happening now far more than to character. The practical conclusion is a narrow one: look for the pattern not in yourself in general, but in who you are with when the needle climbs.
Rarely
A low score does not mean an absence of worry. It means that in pair after pair you took the calm option: a gap between replies does not turn into a question about what went wrong, and a short message reads as a short message rather than as evidence. Underneath sits a working assumption — if something were wrong, you would be told — and it saves an enormous amount of energy. Its blind spot is the same assumption, because it mutes real signals too. Someone drifting away slowly and without announcing it has a better chance of going unnoticed at this end of the scale than at the other.