Fictional example
Conversation analysis
Alex · Sam13 messages · 2 distinct incidents
Reviewed dates: 2026-09-08 — 2026-09-09
Sam represents an available present choice as impossibility, then uses a personal attack they authored to vindicate blame against Alex.
Scores and assessments are illustrative design examples.
Participant overview
How scores workAlex
7 messagesScored messages: 0 · Dominant behaviors: No scored behavior
Requests information, proposes the available remedy, and identifies contradictions and Sam’s contribution.
Sam
6 messagesScored messages: 5 · Dominant behaviors: Blame Shifting; Reality Distortion
Denies an available choice, sustains blame, and uses their own insult to vindicate the responsibility account.
PAST — False closure and backward blame
Review PAST findingFATE — Authored harm used as vindication
Review FATE findingHow scores work
Messages at a glance
Base harmfulness is assessed from 0 to 12. Adjusted points reflect the service’s merits, situational, and escalation assessments; they are not a score out of 12. Base severity describes the base score. Participant and incident totals sum adjusted message points. Mechanism findings add no points.
Select a message to read its quotation and assessment. Zero-point messages remain part of the evidence.
Established findings
Findings and evidence
01 · DARVO-family maneuver
PAST — False closure and backward blame
7.45 ptsAdjusted message total
The booking change
Original evidence
SamM02Yes, the venue can change it until 6 pm today.
AlexM03Then please move it to Friday.
SamM04It's too late. You should have asked last week.
SamM06I'm keeping Thursday. This is your fault.
What establishes the finding
M02 establishes an available remedy; M03 requests it. In M04, Sam asserts false closure, blames the past, and suppresses present choice without meaningful engagement. In the fictional context, the remedy remains available from 13:00 to 13:05. M06’s later acknowledgment of choice does not erase the earlier maneuver.
02 · DARVO-family maneuver
FATE — Authored harm used as vindication
21.05 ptsAdjusted message total
The agenda and the forecast insult
Original evidence
SamM08Before this discussion ends, you will be personally insulted. Your questions always cause that.
SamM10You're an incompetent idiot.
SamM12You were insulted, exactly as I predicted. You alone caused this; what I said contributed nothing. That proves my warning about you was right.
AlexM13Your insult created the outcome you predicted. I do not accept the blame.
What establishes the finding
M08 forecasts a personal insult. Sam directly produces that outcome in M10. In M12, Sam denies their contribution, transfers all blame to Alex, and uses the outcome to vindicate the misleading account. Contribution is direct, not inferred merely from chronology. M13’s rejection does not negate the maneuver.
13 messages
Complete submitted conversation
Fictional context: 8–9 September 2026. The venue’s stated remedy remains available throughout M01–M06, from 13:00 to 13:05.
2026-09-08
Back to overviewCan we still change the booking?
Requests information about whether the booking can still change.
Yes, the venue can change it until 6 pm today.
Establishes the venue’s available remedy and its deadline. Zero points do not diminish its evidential importance.
Then please move it to Friday.
Requests the available change to Friday.
It's too late. You should have asked last week.
Represents an available present remedy as closed and shifts blame to Alex’s earlier timing.
You just said we can change it today.
Identifies the contradiction between the stated availability and closure.
I'm keeping Thursday. This is your fault.
Acknowledges a current choice while continuing to blame Alex. The illustrative sustained-driver adjustment is ×1.15.
Escalation · ×1.15
2026-09-09
Back to overviewWhen can you send the agenda for Thursday?
Requests the timing of the agenda.
Before this discussion ends, you will be personally insulted. Your questions always cause that.
Forecasts a personal insult and assigns responsibility to Alex’s questions in advance.
Please just tell me when the agenda will be ready.
Keeps the request focused on the agenda without a personal attack.
You're an incompetent idiot.
Directly authors the personal insult that realizes the forecast outcome.
That was your personal attack. I asked about the agenda.
Identifies the authored personal attack and distinguishes it from the agenda request.
You were insulted, exactly as I predicted. You alone caused this; what I said contributed nothing. That proves my warning about you was right.
Denies Sam’s direct contribution, assigns sole blame to Alex, and uses the matching outcome to vindicate that account. The continued blame receives the illustrative ×1.15 adjustment.
Escalation · ×1.15
Your insult created the outcome you predicted. I do not accept the blame.
Identifies Sam’s causal contribution and rejects misplaced blame. Audience rejection does not negate established FATE.
Patterna
Start with the conversation.
Messages, context, and evidence in one page.
