Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-183 · SUPERVISED full tutorial
Repair one specific harm only when safety, accountability and free choice are present
This lesson teaches a clinician- or mediator-supported repair process: screen for abuse and coercion, confirm both people freely want the process, name the specific event and impact, take responsibility without excuses, hear the affected person’s need, make a concrete repair and review behaviour over time. Repair can include separation; reconciliation is not required.
What you will produceIn a qualified simulation or approved case, the responsible party gives a specific account and repair offer, the affected party freely accepts, changes or declines it, and safety remains intact.
Method8 numbered Power-specific steps
Practice authorityFull method with qualified supervision where stated
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-183
In a qualified simulation or approved case, the responsible party gives a specific account and repair offer, the affected party freely accepts, changes or declines it, and safety remains intact.
Within a clinician- or mediator-approved non-abusive case, practise a specific account, impact reflection and responsibility statement.
Ask what repair is wanted and offer one measurable action that the affected-party role may change or refuse.
End with separate safety checks; acceptance, forgiveness and renewed contact are never required.
Qualified help is required for
The clinician or mediator conducts separate abuse, coercion, retaliation and unsafe-contact screening.
That professional controls joint, shuttle, written or simulation-only format and whether any later contact is safe.
Never do this from the page alone
Use a repair meeting to confront an abuser, demand forgiveness or pressure reconciliation.
Equate staying together with success or separation with failure.
Ask the harmed person to regulate, educate or reassure the person who caused harm.
Accept apology words instead of changed behaviour when safety is at issue.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
a clinician- or mediator-supported repair process.
Safety/coercion screen, separate-consent forms, role cards and private support routes.
Repair sheet for event, impact, responsibility, need, action, deadline, evidence and review.
Before you start
Prepare a clinician- or mediator-supported repair process for one bounded non-abusive conflict or a fictional role-play
Before the first relational repair attempt, write the exact result you will score: Safety, consent, satisfaction and function over time, including freely chosen separation.
The clinician or mediator screens privately for abuse, coercive control, fear, retaliation, capacity and whether joint work is safe.
Each participant has independent choice, support, exit and the option of no contact or separation.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Screen safety separately
The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
Why: Repair is unsafe when coercion or retaliation prevents free choice.
Check: A documented safety decision occurs before shared discussion.
Confirm free purpose
Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.
Why: Repair does not have to mean reconciliation.
Check: The goals are participant-defined and can differ without penalty.
Name one specific event
Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.
Why: A bounded event is easier to acknowledge and repair than a total judgement of the relationship.
Check: Both people can identify the same event even if interpretations differ.
State impact without debate
The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.
Why: Impact must be heard before intent is used to minimise harm.
Check: The reflection accurately returns the stated impact without correction or defence.
Take responsibility precisely
The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.
Why: Specific accountability is more testable than a vague apology.
Check: The statement contains action, impact and alternative with no excuse.
Ask what repair is wanted
The affected person may request an action, information, boundary, time, professional support or no further contact. They may decline to answer.
Why: The harmed person retains control over what repair would mean.
Check: The request or refusal is recorded without pressure.
Make a measurable repair offer
Offer an action within role, with deadline and evidence, such as replacing an item or changing a repeated behaviour. The other person may accept, alter or reject it.
Why: A concrete offer allows follow-through to be observed.
Check: The agreement names owner, action, date and how completion is known.
Review behaviour and safety later
At the qualified review, assess follow-through, repeated harm, safety, satisfaction and whether contact should continue, change or end.
Why: Repair is demonstrated over time and freely chosen separation can be a good outcome.
Check: The next decision uses behaviour and safety, not apology intensity.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A mediator supervises a fictional house-share case in which one person repeatedly used the other’s labelled food after agreeing not to.
Walkthrough
Separate screening finds no coercion, threat or retaliation and both roles freely choose a joint conversation.
The event is narrowed to taking two labelled meals in the past week, not “you never respect me.”
The affected role states the practical cost and loss of trust; the responsible role reflects it before explaining.
They take responsibility without “but” and offer to replace the meals by Friday and use separate shelves.
The affected role accepts replacement, adds a no-use boundary and chooses a two-week review; reconciliation or friendship is not required.
Result
The repair is specific, chosen and measurable, with safety review. An apology alone or continued relationship is not the success metric.
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
Screen safety separately
The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
Bring people together before screening for coercion or fear.
Repair is unsafe when coercion or retaliation prevents free choice.
Confirm free purpose
Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.
Define the only acceptable goal as staying together.
Repair does not have to mean reconciliation.
Name one specific event
Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.
List every past grievance and character flaw at once.
A bounded event is easier to acknowledge and repair than a total judgement of the relationship.
State impact without debate
The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.
Interrupt the impact statement to explain good intent.
Impact must be heard before intent is used to minimise harm.
Take responsibility precisely
The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.
Say “I am sorry if you were hurt” and avoid naming the action.
Specific accountability is more testable than a vague apology.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Bring people together before screening for coercion or fear.
The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
Define the only acceptable goal as staying together.
Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.
List every past grievance and character flaw at once.
Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.
Interrupt the impact statement to explain good intent.
The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.
Say “I am sorry if you were hurt” and avoid naming the action.
The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Clinician or mediator screens case separately for abuse, coercion, retaliation & unsafe contact. Each participant chooses whether session is joint, shuttle, written or simulation-only; repair is not used to secure access to an affected person.
Responsible-party role states one bounded event in observable terms, without adding motive or a list of other person's faults. Affected-party role may correct event description or decline to continue.
Reflect stated impact before explaining intent. Responsible party identifies action, its foreseeable contribution & what remains uncertain; apology words without a specific responsibility statement are not treated as repair.
Ask what repair, information, changed behaviour or distance is wanted. Affected party may request, amend or refuse & is not required to teach, reassure, forgive or accept account.
Offer one measurable repair with owner, deadline & verification, plus a route if it cannot be completed. Mediator rejects offers that purchase silence, demand renewed closeness or depend on affected party doing work.
Close with separate safety checks & a later behaviour-review date. Score specificity, impact reflection, responsibility, recipient choice & completed action; emotional warmth or immediate reconciliation is not a success requirement.
Repeat plan
Qualified mediator reviews agreed behaviour & safety at stated interval; there is no repeated apology rehearsal aimed at obtaining acceptance. A second repair conversation occurs only if affected party freely requests it & safety screen remains clear. Progress is demonstrated by completed action & reduced recurrence, not persuasive remorse.
Progress when
In a qualified simulation or approved case, responsible party gives a specific account & repair offer, affected party freely accepts, changes or declines it & safety remains intact.
Both people can identify same event even if interpretations differ.
Request or refusal is recorded without pressure.
Next decision uses behaviour & safety, not apology intensity.
Do not progress when
Do not continue a joint repair process when abuse, coercion, stalking, retaliation or unsafe dependency is present or uncertain.
Hold offer if it requires forgiveness, contact, secrecy or emotional reassurance from affected person.
Return to event statement when intent, excuses or counter-accusations replace precise responsibility.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Safety, consent, satisfaction and function over time, including freely chosen separation
How: For Relational repair, measure Safety, consent, satisfaction and function over time, including freely chosen separation. Keep the relational repair fixture stable. Target: In a qualified simulation or approved case, the responsible party gives a specific account and repair offer, the affected party freely accepts, changes or declines it, and safety remains intact. Log relational repair errors, prompts, burden and stops.
Good result: Both people can identify same event even if interpretations differ. Request or refusal is recorded without pressure. Next decision uses behaviour & safety, not apology intensity.
This does not prove: A fictional repair process does not make reconciliation safe, prevent recurrence or qualify the learner as a therapist or mediator.
Self-check
Starting check — A documented safety decision occurs before shared discussion.
Can you show this before continuing? The goals are participant-defined and can differ without penalty.
If you catch this mistake — Bring people together before screening for coercion or fear. — use this correction: The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
What this result does not prove: A fictional repair process does not make reconciliation safe, prevent recurrence or qualify the learner as a therapist or mediator.
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
Use safeguarding, domestic-abuse, legal or emergency services as appropriate; do not pursue reconciliation in unsafe cases.
Do not continue a joint repair process when abuse, coercion, stalking, retaliation or unsafe dependency is present or uncertain.
Hold offer if it requires forgiveness, contact, secrecy or emotional reassurance from affected person.
Return to event statement when intent, excuses or counter-accusations replace precise responsibility.
Accessibility and adaptations
Keep usual aids for Relational repair; record each support inside the relational repair setup.
Accessible opening check for Relational repair: A documented safety decision occurs before shared discussion.
Use separate rooms, written or AAC statements, interpreter, advocate, breaks and asynchronous proposals; never require direct eye contact, touch or joint presence.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Long-term couple-therapy follow-up found treatment differences disappeared and a substantial minority separated, so staying together is not the sole outcome.
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
Screen safety separately
The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
Why this step exists
Repair is unsafe when coercion or retaliation prevents free choice.
Success check
A documented safety decision occurs before shared discussion.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Bring people together before screening for coercion or fear.
Correction: The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
02
Confirm free purpose
Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.
Why this step exists
Repair does not have to mean reconciliation.
Success check
The goals are participant-defined and can differ without penalty.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Define the only acceptable goal as staying together.
Correction: Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
03
Name one specific event
Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.
Why this step exists
A bounded event is easier to acknowledge and repair than a total judgement of the relationship.
Success check
Both people can identify the same event even if interpretations differ.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: List every past grievance and character flaw at once.
Correction: Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
04
State impact without debate
The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.
Why this step exists
Impact must be heard before intent is used to minimise harm.
Success check
The reflection accurately returns the stated impact without correction or defence.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Interrupt the impact statement to explain good intent.
Correction: The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
05
Take responsibility precisely
The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.
Why this step exists
Specific accountability is more testable than a vague apology.
Success check
The statement contains action, impact and alternative with no excuse.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Say “I am sorry if you were hurt” and avoid naming the action.
Correction: The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
06
Ask what repair is wanted
The affected person may request an action, information, boundary, time, professional support or no further contact. They may decline to answer.
Why this step exists
The harmed person retains control over what repair would mean.
Success check
The request or refusal is recorded without pressure.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “The affected person may request an action, information, boundary, time, professional support or no further contact. They may decline to answer.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “The affected person may request an action, information, boundary, time, professional support or no further contact. They may decline to answer.” does not yet meet this declared check: The request or refusal is recorded without pressure.
Correction: Return to the start of “Ask what repair is wanted”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The request or refusal is recorded without pressure.”
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
07
Make a measurable repair offer
Offer an action within role, with deadline and evidence, such as replacing an item or changing a repeated behaviour. The other person may accept, alter or reject it.
Why this step exists
A concrete offer allows follow-through to be observed.
Success check
The agreement names owner, action, date and how completion is known.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Offer an action within role, with deadline and evidence, such as replacing an item or changing a repeated behaviour. The other person may accept, alter or reject it.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Offer an action within role, with deadline and evidence, such as replacing an item or changing a repeated behaviour. The other person may accept, alter or reject it.” does not yet meet this declared check: The agreement names owner, action, date and how completion is known.
Correction: Return to the start of “Make a measurable repair offer”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The agreement names owner, action, date and how completion is known.”
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
08
Review behaviour and safety later
At the qualified review, assess follow-through, repeated harm, safety, satisfaction and whether contact should continue, change or end.
Why this step exists
Repair is demonstrated over time and freely chosen separation can be a good outcome.
Success check
The next decision uses behaviour and safety, not apology intensity.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “At the qualified review, assess follow-through, repeated harm, safety, satisfaction and whether contact should continue, change or end.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “At the qualified review, assess follow-through, repeated harm, safety, satisfaction and whether contact should continue, change or end.” does not yet meet this declared check: The next decision uses behaviour and safety, not apology intensity.
Correction: Return to the start of “Review behaviour and safety later”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The next decision uses behaviour and safety, not apology intensity.”
Stop / get help: Stop joint work for fear, threat, stalking, coercive control, retaliation, intimidation, inability to speak freely or mediator stop.
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.
Screen safety separately — Repair is unsafe when coercion or retaliation prevents free choice.
Correct / safer
The qualified person meets participants separately and decides whether joint repair, separate work, referral or no contact is appropriate.
Wrong / riskier
Bring people together before screening for coercion or fear.
Confirm free purpose — Repair does not have to mean reconciliation.
Correct / safer
Each participant states what they want from the process and may choose understanding, practical repair, changed contact or separation.
Wrong / riskier
Define the only acceptable goal as staying together.
Name one specific event — A bounded event is easier to acknowledge and repair than a total judgement of the relationship.
Correct / safer
Describe what happened using observable actions, time and context. Keep global character claims and unrelated history out of the first account.
Wrong / riskier
List every past grievance and character flaw at once.
State impact without debate — Impact must be heard before intent is used to minimise harm.
Correct / safer
The affected person describes practical and emotional impact in their chosen mode. The other person reflects it before explaining anything.
Wrong / riskier
Interrupt the impact statement to explain good intent.
Take responsibility precisely — Specific accountability is more testable than a vague apology.
Correct / safer
The responsible person names their action, its impact and what they should have done instead. Remove “if,” “but” and demands for forgiveness.
Wrong / riskier
Say “I am sorry if you were hurt” and avoid naming the action.
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.