# PWR-183 — Relational repair: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 13 min reading; practical time is provider-set Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Basic stationery or digital tools — 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. Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G4; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context 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. Target outcome: 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. ### Authority and setup conditions - 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. ### Required or supplied materials - 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. ## 1. 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. Success check: A documented safety decision occurs before shared discussion. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “A documented safety decision occurs before shared discussion.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. 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. Success check: The goals are participant-defined and can differ without penalty. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The goals are participant-defined and can differ without penalty.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. 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. Success check: Both people can identify the same event even if interpretations differ. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “Both people can identify the same event even if interpretations differ.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. 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. Success check: The reflection accurately returns the stated impact without correction or defence. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The reflection accurately returns the stated impact without correction or defence.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. 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. Success check: The statement contains action, impact and alternative with no excuse. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The statement contains action, impact and alternative with no excuse.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. 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. Success check: The request or refusal is recorded without pressure. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The request or refusal is recorded without pressure.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. 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. Success check: The agreement names owner, action, date and how completion is known. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The agreement names owner, action, date and how completion is known.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 8. 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. Success check: The next decision uses behaviour and safety, not apology intensity. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The next decision uses behaviour and safety, not apology intensity.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.