What I value when receiving an apology
These four items ask how much you value a specific plan to avoid repeating an ordinary mistake. They concern notification when plans change, checking information before repeating a claim, precautions when borrowing, and anticipating a clash with a promise to help. The group follows the planned-change theme in the popular Chapman and Thomas framework. It records what you want when receiving an apology, not whether the person has already changed. A statement about future action and evidence of that action remain different kinds of information.
A separate importance mean from four complete answers, without a primary type or tie-break. A skip withholds this group only.
A plan for the next relevant occasion
These four items ask how much you value a specific plan to avoid repeating an ordinary mistake. They concern notification when plans change, checking information before repeating a claim, precautions when borrowing, and anticipating a clash with a promise to help. The group follows the planned-change theme in the popular Chapman and Thomas framework. It records what you want when receiving an apology, not whether the person has already changed. A statement about future action and evidence of that action remain different kinds of information.
Importance does not predict follow-through
A higher mean means you place more stated importance on the four planning elements. It does not show that you are better at change, less forgiving, or able to recognize a sincere promise. A lower mean does not mean you accept repeated harm; you may need an immediate repair before discussing the future. You can value responsibility and planned change together. Equal values stay visible without a preferred winner, and no numerical gap is treated as proof that one form of apology will work while another will fail.
A missed promise needs a usable next arrangement
Suppose someone has twice agreed to help with a community activity but later discovers a scheduling conflict. You may want them to check their calendar before agreeing and tell you early if circumstances change. This is more specific than a promise that they will never let you down again. It still cannot guarantee an outcome, because schedules and responsibilities can change. You can decide that future help needs a backup arrangement, or that you do not want another commitment from that person. The score does not choose for you.
Ask about an action, rather than a transformed personality
A possible request is: “Before agreeing next time, could you check the date and tell me when you can confirm?” A possible apology is: “I agreed before checking. Next time I will confirm the date first, and I will tell you if I cannot commit.” A counterexample is requiring continuous access to someone’s calendar or private messages as proof that they changed. Another is accepting a dramatic promise as evidence that the change has already happened. The relevant discussion can stay specific and respect privacy on both sides.
Separate a plan, a limit and a review point
If a conversation is wanted, you could identify one action, a foreseeable obstacle, and a reasonable occasion to revisit the arrangement. Neither person has to promise perfection. You may also decide that the proposed change does not address what you need and keep your boundary. Do not use this guide to pressure someone to monitor another adult or remain in an unsafe situation while waiting for improvement. Repeated questionnaire scores are not evidence that behavior changed, and you do not owe continued access in exchange for a promise.
Arithmetic, missing answers and source limits
The four importance ratings run from 1 to 5, with no reverse items. Their sum divided by four is displayed to one decimal: 15 divided by 4 displays as 3.8. Any unscored answer withholds this group’s mean, while complete groups remain available. All five full guides stay free. FermatMind wrote this item set and scoring policy; Chapman and Thomas supply the popular five-theme background, not a license for an official quiz or validation of this edition. No norms, clinical thresholds, relationship predictions or established meaningful-change values are applied.