Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-241 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Clarify one low-stakes value conflict without turning values into a virtue score
This lesson teaches decision-specific value clarity. You will name where a value comes from, translate broad words into behaviours and look-alikes, identify affected people, preserve competing values, separate facts from preferences, compare reversible options, take one small action and review whether it fitted. The exercise cannot discover correct or permanent values.
What you will produceThe learner produces a one-page low-stakes decision map with two competing values, observable behaviours, affected interests, uncertainty, a reversible action and a scheduled review.
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-241
The learner produces a one-page low-stakes decision map with two competing values, observable behaviours, affected interests, uncertainty, a reversible action and a scheduled review.
Reflect privately on a low-consequence decision and choose not to decide.
Revise or retire a stated value or plan as facts and life change.
Use support, time and uncertainty without treating them as moral weakness.
Qualified help is required for
Clinical decision aids, treatment choices, end-of-life, legal, financial, family or community conflict.
Interpretation of sacred, cultural, professional or shared values that the learner does not own.
Work involving coercion, abuse, crisis, trauma, self-harm or another person’s rights.
Never do this from the page alone
Rank yourself or another person as good, authentic or worthy from the worksheet.
Force a single permanent ordering of values across all contexts.
Publish or reinterpret shared cultural or family material without authority.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
A private low-stakes prompt: “Rest matters, but I keep adding optional tasks after my planned stop time.”
Value-source and behaviour table, facts/assumptions/values columns, two-option trade-off grid and review card.
A timer and 0–10 burden/fit ratings; no public sharing is required.
Before you start
Choose a reversible decision with no health, safety, legal, financial or relationship consequence.
Write who is affected and whose separate consent or authority would be needed.
Set the option to pause or retire before trying to resolve the conflict.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Name the decision
Write the exact low-stakes choice, timing and what is outside the exercise.
Why: Values become useful when tied to a decision.
Check: The question has two or more real options and a safe no-action route.
Trace value sources
For each value, mark personally endorsed, role-based, cultural/family, rights-based, imposed or uncertain; note who may interpret shared values.
Why: Source awareness separates choice from pressure.
Check: No shared value is claimed as privately owned.
Translate words into behaviours
List three observable behaviours that could express each value and three look-alikes that might violate it.
Why: Broad labels such as care or achievement can justify opposite acts.
Check: The behaviours are concrete enough to compare with action.
Map affected interests
Name who benefits, bears cost, is absent and what is outside your authority; do not imagine their consent.
Why: A personal choice can still affect others.
Check: The map distinguishes known input from guessed perspective.
Separate facts and values
Put observed facts, predicted effects and chosen value judgements into three labelled columns.
Why: A preference should not masquerade as evidence.
Check: Every reason is placed in the correct category or marked uncertain.
Preserve the trade-off
For each option, write what each value protects and costs; allow two legitimate values to remain in tension.
Why: Clarity does not require eliminating conflict.
Check: The record does not turn one value into a universal winner.
Choose a small reversible action
Select one low-burden action for one occurrence and state the stop condition.
Why: A reversible trial supplies information without a life contract.
Check: The action can be undone and affects only the declared decision.
Review fit rather than virtue
After the occurrence, record what happened, burden, affected-person feedback if legitimately available and whether to keep, adapt or retire.
Why: Outcome and context are more informative than self-judgement.
Check: The conclusion uses evidence from the action, not character labels.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A learner values both rest and reliability and is deciding whether to answer optional messages after 19:00.
Walkthrough
They define the decision as one weekday evening, not a permanent communications identity.
They list rest behaviours such as closing the inbox and reliability behaviours such as giving a clear next-response time; “reply instantly while exhausted” is marked a look-alike for reliability.
They note colleagues may be affected but have not authorised the learner to speak for their preferences, and separate the fact of three non-urgent messages from the forecast that delay will disappoint.
They set an automatic “tomorrow morning” note for one evening, review workload and any actual consequence, then keep, adapt or retire the boundary.
Result
The learner clarifies a decision-specific trade-off and tests one reversible behaviour. The result is not a moral ranking, permanent value hierarchy or workplace policy.
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
Using value words
Define each value through observable behaviour and a plausible counterfeit behaviour.
Write “be caring” or “be disciplined” as the plan.
Abstract labels cannot guide or test action.
Considering others
Ask through legitimate channels or mark their view unknown.
Imagine what affected people must want.
Perspective taking is not consent or representation.
Resolving conflict
Keep costs and protections of both values visible.
Force one global ranking across contexts even when real duties conflict.
The same value can require different action when duties and affected people change.
Reviewing decision point
Use actual outcome, burden and fit.
Treat a mismatch as hypocrisy or weak character.
Configuration and competing duties often explain gaps.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
A virtue adjective replaces a context-specific behaviour.
Replace the adjective with a visible action in one context.
An imposed duty is labelled a personally chosen value.
Mark source and whether endorsement is uncertain.
Observed facts and preferred outcomes are blended.
Move each statement to observation, forecast or value.
The learner guesses an affected person's preference.
Record unknown and seek legitimate input only if needed and authorised.
A reversible value experiment hardens into a permanent rule.
Add an expiry date and keep/adapt/retire review.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Define one private low-stakes decision and non-goals.
Map two value sources and concrete behaviours/look-alikes.
Separate facts, assumptions, values and affected interests.
Compare options and choose one reversible action.
Review fit and burden after the occurrence without a virtue score.
Repeat plan
Use the method on no more than one low-stakes decision per week for four weeks. Revisit the same decision after one month only if it still matters; progress means clearer trade-offs and revision, not a higher value score.
Progress when
Value labels are translated into observable behaviour and counterexamples.
Affected interests and uncertainty remain visible without invented consent.
The learner can keep, adapt or retire an action without shame or sunk-cost pressure.
Do not progress when
The decision affects health, safety, money, employment, legal rights, another person’s consent or cultural authority.
Reflection becomes obsessive, shaming, destabilising or distressing.
The worksheet is being used to prescribe correct values or judge someone’s worth.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Completeness and later fit of one decision-specific value map
How: Score decision clarity, two value sources, behaviours/look-alikes, affected interests, fact/value separation, trade-off, reversible action and review outcome; record burden and fit.
Good result: A good result completes every element and produces a reasoned keep/adapt/retire decision without moral ranking or unowned claims.
This does not prove: It does not reveal true values, guarantee decisional confidence, establish permanent identity or prescribe the correct choice.
Self-check
Where did each value come from, and who has authority to interpret it?
What behaviour expresses each value and what look-alike violates it?
Which statement is a fact, forecast or value judgement?
What result will make you keep, adapt or retire the action?
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
Stop when another person’s rights, consent, safety or cultural authority becomes central.
Seek appropriate clinical, legal, ethical, community or decision-support help for consequential choices.
Accessibility and adaptations
Use spoken, pictured, AAC or simplified value/behaviour cards and allow a support person chosen by the learner.
Allow uncertainty and extra time; do not equate verbal fluency with clarity.
Keep the exercise private and offer a non-writing route such as sorting cards without requiring public disclosure.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
A randomised values-clarification exercise added to a heart-disease decision aid showed limited selected effects, so decision-specific help should not be overstated.
An independent randomised study found no added improvement on several decision outcomes, underscoring that values exercises do not reveal a universally correct choice.
Only one low-stakes reversible decision is addressed.
Values are contextual, plural and revisable; no virtue score is produced.
Clarity does not remove legitimate conflict or create authority over others.
The exercise cannot determine correct values or a permanent identity.
One trial found little immediate or three-month change and selected later benefit; an independent trial found no added improvement in decisional conflict, intent, perceived values concordance or self-efficacy.
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 decision
Write the exact low-stakes choice, timing and what is outside the exercise.
Why this step exists
Values become useful when tied to a decision.
Success check
The question has two or more real options and a safe no-action route.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write the exact low-stakes choice, timing and what is outside the exercise.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Write the exact low-stakes choice, timing and what is outside the exercise.” does not yet meet this declared check: The question has two or more real options and a safe no-action route.
Correction: Return to the start of “Name the decision”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The question has two or more real options and a safe no-action route.”
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
02
Trace value sources
For each value, mark personally endorsed, role-based, cultural/family, rights-based, imposed or uncertain; note who may interpret shared values.
Why this step exists
Source awareness separates choice from pressure.
Success check
No shared value is claimed as privately owned.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “For each value, mark personally endorsed, role-based, cultural/family, rights-based, imposed or uncertain; note who may interpret shared values.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: An imposed duty is labelled a personally chosen value.
Correction: Mark source and whether endorsement is uncertain.
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
03
Translate words into behaviours
List three observable behaviours that could express each value and three look-alikes that might violate it.
Why this step exists
Broad labels such as care or achievement can justify opposite acts.
Success check
The behaviours are concrete enough to compare with action.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “List three observable behaviours that could express each value and three look-alikes that might violate it.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “List three observable behaviours that could express each value and three look-alikes that might violate it.” does not yet meet this declared check: The behaviours are concrete enough to compare with action.
Correction: Return to the start of “Translate words into behaviours”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The behaviours are concrete enough to compare with action.”
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
04
Map affected interests
Name who benefits, bears cost, is absent and what is outside your authority; do not imagine their consent.
Why this step exists
A personal choice can still affect others.
Success check
The map distinguishes known input from guessed perspective.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Name who benefits, bears cost, is absent and what is outside your authority; do not imagine their consent.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Name who benefits, bears cost, is absent and what is outside your authority; do not imagine their consent.” does not yet meet this declared check: The map distinguishes known input from guessed perspective.
Correction: Return to the start of “Map affected interests”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The map distinguishes known input from guessed perspective.”
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
05
Separate facts and values
Put observed facts, predicted effects and chosen value judgements into three labelled columns.
Why this step exists
A preference should not masquerade as evidence.
Success check
Every reason is placed in the correct category or marked uncertain.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Put observed facts, predicted effects and chosen value judgements into three labelled columns.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Observed facts and preferred outcomes are blended.
Correction: Move each statement to observation, forecast or value.
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
06
Preserve the trade-off
For each option, write what each value protects and costs; allow two legitimate values to remain in tension.
Why this step exists
Clarity does not require eliminating conflict.
Success check
The record does not turn one value into a universal winner.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “For each option, write what each value protects and costs; allow two legitimate values to remain in tension.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “For each option, write what each value protects and costs; allow two legitimate values to remain in tension.” does not yet meet this declared check: The record does not turn one value into a universal winner.
Correction: Return to the start of “Preserve the trade-off”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The record does not turn one value into a universal winner.”
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
07
Choose a small reversible action
Select one low-burden action for one occurrence and state the stop condition.
Why this step exists
A reversible trial supplies information without a life contract.
Success check
The action can be undone and affects only the declared decision.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Select one low-burden action for one occurrence and state the stop condition.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: A virtue adjective replaces a context-specific behaviour.
Correction: Replace the adjective with a visible action in one context.
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
08
Review fit rather than virtue
After the occurrence, record what happened, burden, affected-person feedback if legitimately available and whether to keep, adapt or retire.
Why this step exists
Outcome and context are more informative than self-judgement.
Success check
The conclusion uses evidence from the action, not character labels.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “After the occurrence, record what happened, burden, affected-person feedback if legitimately available and whether to keep, adapt or retire.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The learner guesses an affected person's preference.
Correction: Record unknown and seek legitimate input only if needed and authorised.
Possible snag: A reversible value experiment hardens into a permanent rule.
Correction: Add an expiry date and keep/adapt/retire review.
Stop / get help: Stop if distress, shame, compulsive rumination or pressure to disclose increases.
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.
Using value words — Abstract labels cannot guide or test action.
Correct / safer
Define each value through observable behaviour and a plausible counterfeit behaviour.
Wrong / riskier
Write “be caring” or “be disciplined” as the plan.
Considering others — Perspective taking is not consent or representation.
Correct / safer
Ask through legitimate channels or mark their view unknown.
Wrong / riskier
Imagine what affected people must want.
Resolving conflict — The same value can require different action when duties and affected people change.
Correct / safer
Keep costs and protections of both values visible.
Wrong / riskier
Force one global ranking across contexts even when real duties conflict.
Reviewing decision point — Configuration and competing duties often explain gaps.
Correct / safer
Use actual outcome, burden and fit.
Wrong / riskier
Treat a mismatch as hypocrisy or weak character.
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.