Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-140 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Make an honest low-stakes case while protecting the listener’s freedom to say no
This lesson teaches ethical persuasion for a fictional or reversible proposal: define the choice, learn the audience’s stated interests, separate facts from values, give claim–reason–evidence, disclose uncertainty and invite refusal. It excludes deception, coercion and exploitation.
What you will produceThe learner delivers a two-minute proposal whose listener can accurately teach back the claim, evidence, uncertainty and right to refuse.
Role-play only a fictional reversible proposal with a consented partner who can stop or refuse without penalty.
Ask for the listener’s stated interests, label facts, values and uncertainties, disclose downsides, and preserve the rejected option.
Report teach-back accuracy, trust and voluntary choice separately from attitude change; agreement is not required for a successful exercise.
Qualified help is required for
Consent, regulated sales, political campaigning or influence over a dependent audience requires the responsible legal, ethics or clinical authority.
A successful fictional proposal does not authorise campaigning, sales, clinical consent or influence over dependent people. No wider persuasive communication claim follows.
Never do this from the page alone
Misstate evidence, hide a material downside or manufacture urgency.
Exploit fear, dependency, disability, private information or authority to obtain agreement.
Treat agreement as proof that the claim was true or consent was free.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
a fictional low-stakes proposal to a consented audience.
A claim–reason–evidence card and a fact-checkable source for each factual statement.
A listener card with interests, questions and an explicit right to stop or refuse.
Before you start
Prepare a fictional, reversible proposal such as choosing one of two practice-room layouts, presented to a consented role-play partner
Before the first persuasive communication attempt, write the exact result you will score: Comprehension, factual accuracy, calibrated trust, voluntary choice, reversibility and attitude change reported separately.
Confirm the partner is volunteering for a simulation and that the outcome has no real consequence.
Remove scarcity pressure, hidden incentives, personal vulnerabilities and false urgency from the scenario.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Name the exact decision
Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
Why: A concrete decision makes pressure and alternatives visible.
Check: The request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.
Ask for stated interests
Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.
Why: Persuasion should respond to stated interests rather than invented vulnerabilities.
Check: The partner agrees that the written interests reflect what they said.
Separate fact from value
Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Why: Eloquent delivery can persuade even when accuracy is poor; labels keep evidence visible.
Check: Every support point has a label and every F point has a source.
Build claim–reason–evidence
State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.
Why: A visible reasoning chain is easier to check and challenge than a stream of confident assertions.
Check: The listener can point to the claim, reason and evidence separately.
Disclose costs and uncertainty
Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.
Why: Material limits allow calibrated trust instead of compliance based on confidence.
Check: The proposal contains a real downside, an uncertainty and a revision condition.
Invite refusal and questions
Say that refusal has no penalty, pause, then ask what seems unsupported or misaligned. Do not rebut the first concern immediately.
Why: Freedom to question or refuse is part of ethical influence.
Check: The partner can decline or challenge a claim without the speaker escalating pressure.
Check understanding, not agreement
Ask the partner to teach back the choice, main evidence, downside and opt-out. Score accuracy separately from whether they agree.
Why: Agreement and comprehension are different outcomes.
Check: The record has separate comprehension, trust and voluntary-choice fields.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A role-play proposes moving a fictional study group from a noisy café to a free library room for one trial meeting.
Walkthrough
The speaker asks for a one-meeting trial and explicitly includes keeping the café as an option.
The listener says conversation and step-free access matter; the speaker repeats both and gets confirmation.
The speaker states that the library room is quieter based on a recorded visit, while “more focused” is labelled an expectation, not a fact.
They disclose the room closes earlier and promise to reverse the trial if access or conversation suffers.
The listener teaches back the evidence and downside, then declines because the earlier closing time matters; the speaker records accurate understanding and voluntary refusal as a valid result.
Result
The listener understood the proposal and declined freely. The skill outcome passes even though attitude change is zero, because accuracy, uncertainty and voluntary choice were preserved.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
Name the exact decision
Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding the no-change option.
A concrete decision makes pressure and alternatives visible.
Ask for stated interests
Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.
Infer the listener’s fears and target them without asking.
Persuasion should respond to stated interests rather than invented vulnerabilities.
Separate fact from value
Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Present preferences and uncertain forecasts as established facts.
Eloquent delivery can persuade even when accuracy is poor; labels keep evidence visible.
Build claim–reason–evidence
State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.
Pile up claims without linking each reason to evidence.
A visible reasoning chain is easier to check and challenge than a stream of confident assertions.
Disclose costs and uncertainty
Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.
Hide the largest downside because it may reduce agreement.
Material limits allow calibrated trust instead of compliance based on confidence.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding the no-change option.
Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
Infer the listener’s fears and target them without asking.
Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.
Present preferences and uncertain forecasts as established facts.
Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Pile up claims without linking each reason to evidence.
State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.
Hide the largest downside because it may reduce agreement.
Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Invite a consented partner to a fictional, reversible choice such as one trial meeting in a library room instead of a café, and make refusal an equally valid outcome.
Ask what matters for this one-meeting choice, write the partner’s exact interests without inferring motives, and read the summary back until they confirm it.
Separate fact from value: Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value & U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Propose the one-meeting library trial while preserving the café option; reflect the listener’s conversation and step-free-access interests before presenting any supporting fact.
Invite refusal & questions: Say that refusal has no penalty, pause, then ask what seems unsupported or misaligned. Do not rebut first concern immediately.
After the two-minute proposal, ask the listener to teach back the claim, sourced evidence, uncertainty and refusal route; score comprehension separately from trust, attitude change and agreement.
Repeat plan
Use two later role-plays with different reversible one-meeting proposals and a fresh consented listener. In the first, repair an unsupported factual point; in the second, answer a stated interest without hiding the no-change option. Progress when each listener can teach back the claim, source, uncertainty and refusal route, while comprehension, trust, choice and agreement remain separate scores.
Progress when
Learner delivers a two-minute proposal whose listener can accurately teach back claim, evidence, uncertainty & right to refuse.
Every support point has a label & every F point has a source.
Partner can decline or challenge a claim without speaker escalating pressure.
Record has separate comprehension, trust & voluntary-choice fields.
Do not progress when
Stay at the current level until request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.
Do not make the task harder while this error remains: Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding no-change option.
Stop exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; simulation is no longer consensual.
How: For Persuasive communication, measure Comprehension, factual accuracy, calibrated trust, voluntary choice, reversibility and attitude change reported separately. Keep the persuasive communication fixture stable. Target: The learner delivers a two-minute proposal whose listener can accurately teach back the claim, evidence, uncertainty and right to refuse. Log persuasive communication errors, prompts, burden and stops.
Good result: Every support point has a label & every F point has a source. Partner can decline or challenge a claim without speaker escalating pressure. Record has separate comprehension, trust & voluntary-choice fields.
This does not prove: A successful fictional proposal does not authorise campaigning, sales, clinical consent or influence over dependent people.
Self-check
Starting check — The request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.
Can you show this before continuing? The partner agrees that the written interests reflect what they said.
If you catch this mistake — Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding the no-change option. — use this correction: Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
What this result does not prove: A successful fictional proposal does not authorise campaigning, sales, clinical consent or influence over dependent people.
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
Persuasive communication does not progress until request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.
Do not add difficulty while this persuasive communication error persists: Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding no-change option.
Stop exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; simulation is no longer consensual.
Accessibility and adaptations
Keep usual aids for Persuasive communication; record each support inside the persuasive communication setup.
Accessible opening check for Persuasive communication: The request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.
Provide the proposal and evidence in the listener’s preferred mode and never require eye contact, rapid response or speech as a condition of trust.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Confident or eloquent forecasting can be persuasive without being more accurate, so factual accuracy must be scored separately from attitude change.
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
Name the exact decision
Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
Why this step exists
A concrete decision makes pressure and alternatives visible.
Success check
The request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding the no-change option.
Correction: Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
02
Ask for stated interests
Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.
Why this step exists
Persuasion should respond to stated interests rather than invented vulnerabilities.
Success check
The partner agrees that the written interests reflect what they said.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Infer the listener’s fears and target them without asking.
Correction: Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
03
Separate fact from value
Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Why this step exists
Eloquent delivery can persuade even when accuracy is poor; labels keep evidence visible.
Success check
Every support point has a label and every F point has a source.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Present preferences and uncertain forecasts as established facts.
Correction: Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
04
Build claim–reason–evidence
State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.
Why this step exists
A visible reasoning chain is easier to check and challenge than a stream of confident assertions.
Success check
The listener can point to the claim, reason and evidence separately.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Pile up claims without linking each reason to evidence.
Correction: State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
05
Disclose costs and uncertainty
Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.
Why this step exists
Material limits allow calibrated trust instead of compliance based on confidence.
Success check
The proposal contains a real downside, an uncertainty and a revision condition.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Hide the largest downside because it may reduce agreement.
Correction: Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
06
Invite refusal and questions
Say that refusal has no penalty, pause, then ask what seems unsupported or misaligned. Do not rebut the first concern immediately.
Why this step exists
Freedom to question or refuse is part of ethical influence.
Success check
The partner can decline or challenge a claim without the speaker escalating pressure.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Say that refusal has no penalty, pause, then ask what seems unsupported or misaligned. Do not rebut the first concern immediately.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Say that refusal has no penalty, pause, then ask what seems unsupported or misaligned. Do not rebut the first concern immediately.” does not yet meet this declared check: The partner can decline or challenge a claim without the speaker escalating pressure.
Correction: Return to the start of “Invite refusal and questions”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The partner can decline or challenge a claim without the speaker escalating pressure.”
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
07
Check understanding, not agreement
Ask the partner to teach back the choice, main evidence, downside and opt-out. Score accuracy separately from whether they agree.
Why this step exists
Agreement and comprehension are different outcomes.
Success check
The record has separate comprehension, trust and voluntary-choice fields.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Ask the partner to teach back the choice, main evidence, downside and opt-out. Score accuracy separately from whether they agree.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Ask the partner to teach back the choice, main evidence, downside and opt-out. Score accuracy separately from whether they agree.” does not yet meet this declared check: The record has separate comprehension, trust and voluntary-choice fields.
Correction: Return to the start of “Check understanding, not agreement”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The record has separate comprehension, trust and voluntary-choice fields.”
Stop / get help: Stop the exercise if refusal brings retaliation, repeated pressure or personal targeting; the simulation is no longer consensual.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Name the exact decision — A concrete decision makes pressure and alternatives visible.
Correct / safer
Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.
Wrong / riskier
Ask for an open-ended commitment while hiding the no-change option.
Ask for stated interests — Persuasion should respond to stated interests rather than invented vulnerabilities.
Correct / safer
Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.
Wrong / riskier
Infer the listener’s fears and target them without asking.
Separate fact from value — Eloquent delivery can persuade even when accuracy is poor; labels keep evidence visible.
Correct / safer
Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.
Wrong / riskier
Present preferences and uncertain forecasts as established facts.
Build claim–reason–evidence — A visible reasoning chain is easier to check and challenge than a stream of confident assertions.
Correct / safer
State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.
Wrong / riskier
Pile up claims without linking each reason to evidence.
Disclose costs and uncertainty — Material limits allow calibrated trust instead of compliance based on confidence.
Correct / safer
Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.
Wrong / riskier
Hide the largest downside because it may reduce agreement.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.