You have a really interesting idea here about taking the characteristics established in the early game and designing scenarios that will specifically challenge those traits. This part I’m a fan of.
However, I think you’re making a fundamental mistake in thinking of this in terms of “rewarding” either choice. See, I love the idea of building up complexities in the personality system, but it ultimately means nothing if you end up creating a binary value system anyway.
To wit: if you reward consistency (which, as has been pointed out, is what many games do), you eliminate the possibility for change or growth and encourage players to play static characters; this approach I am explicitly not a fan of.
But the opposite approach has its own problems; players might feel railroaded into a character arc that they aren’t interested in pursuing—not all honest characters need to learn how to lie, for instance, and in fact, it might come across as reductive to imply that MCs can be boiled down to a few character traits that need to be “fixed”. You’d also have to be very careful about signalling to the player that this isn’t their typical game where they automatically pick the option they have the highest numbers in.
My position is that there should be tradeoffs to both choices, when you’re confronted with such a dilemma; for instance, sticking to your guns might mean losing out on a new opportunity, while changing the game would mean potentially giving up something you already had. In either case, the player should be aware of at least some of the stakes going in. Ideally the player would still feel personally challenged—because the dilemma will be catered to the kind of character they’ve been playing so far—without it being dictated for them which choice is the “right” one.
Alternatively, make the results context-sensitive? To use the “honest character having to lie” example again, I feel the more important lesson here is not so much learning to lie as it is learning when it might be advantageous to lie. In one situation, lying might be for the best; in others, it could backfire. This system would encourage the player to use their own judgment and gauge what the best call is at any given moment, rather than imposing a sweeping, unilateral bias toward one playstyle or the other.
There are probably other approaches that I haven’t even thought of, but my underlying point is here is that I think it’s a disservice to the complexity of your idea to then simplify it back down by saying that your choices in the early game determine the only right way to play if you want to succeed. Challenging the player fundamentally means making the choices difficult, and you can’t do that if you tell them that one way is inherently better than the other, no matter which side of the “consistency vs. growth” spectrum you fall on.