Look back at where boundaries and trust came under pressure
These six statements concern whether expressed words and agreements were consistently remembered and whether a refusal was respected.
The mean describes only how well the six statements fit overall. It cannot confirm that a particular event occurred.
What the six statements cover
- Observe pressure on choice, privacy, agreements, refusals and trust, while keeping ordinary friction distinct from violence and control.
- The items cover different expectations of openness, forgotten or disregarded boundaries, difficulty rebuilding trust after changed agreements, continuing pressure after a refusal, friction around privacy and decisions, and increased checking and suspicion.
Read the arithmetic alongside the responses
- Six responses of 2 total 12 and give a mean of 2.0000. This does not establish that the relationship was safe or rule out one harmful event. The six questions cover selected statements and your memory, rather than an investigation of the whole relationship. The original uncertain response still counts as 3 in the source arithmetic; it is not evidence that an event partially occurred. There is no safety threshold and no responsibility percentage.
- The mean describes only how well the six statements fit overall. It cannot confirm that a particular event occurred.
Facts and questions worth separating
- You might recall a clear refusal that was not respected, an agreement that later changed, or something that repeatedly needed checking.
- What the other person did after one refusal; whether the boundary was explicitly stated; and whether a changed agreement was explained again.
- What happened after you said no or asked for a pause? Would you want to write it down so that you can check the details?
A concrete retrospective example
- Suppose someone recalls asking that a photograph remain private. In a note, they may separate the stated request, what happened to the photograph, any later explanation and what remains unknown. These are different facts. A questionnaire score cannot verify an upload, establish permission or decide an intention. A person can still take a remembered refusal seriously without treating a score as proof for someone else.
- If writing or storing details could increase a safety risk, skip the exercise. You do not owe a former partner access to your answers, a chance to debate your boundary or a new meeting. If you choose support, the useful starting point is the actual situation and what would help you be safe. A low, high, equal or missing score changes none of those options.
What this can help you review
- This may help you mark a boundary that you would want to state or protect earlier in the future.
- It cannot confirm violence, coercion or control, identify a dangerous person, or calculate shares of responsibility.
An optional next step and its safety boundary
- You are not required to make contact, confront, explain yourself or reconcile. If there is a safety threat, put safety first: you may pause contact and seek help from a trusted person, local emergency services or appropriate professional support.
- The safety boundary applies regardless of the score. Violence, coercion, stalking, threats, force and control are not poor communication or mutual incompatibility. Do not seek a two-sided cause for harmful acts.
A counterexample keeps the reading open
A single breach can matter even when the other five answers receive low numbers. Repeated checking can also have more than one explanation, and this test does not diagnose either person. Do not subtract pleasant experiences from harmful acts to calculate a net relationship score. Where violence, coercion, stalking or control is present, it must not be explained as a symmetrical communication problem. Practical safety takes precedence over completing or sharing a test.
Causality, responsibility and evidence
- This test cannot establish a causal link between pressure on boundaries or trust and the end of the relationship. It does not allocate shares of responsibility. Staying, not resisting or reconciling must not be treated as consent or shared responsibility for harm. Safety threats are beyond the test. Its results cannot replace practical or professional support, or prove or rule out a history of harm.
- Does not confirm that a specific harmful event occurred; Does not identify you or the other person as dangerous; Does not mean both people caused violence