Look at what followed the promise
Examine plans, promised updates and changes after a repeated issue. Read six-item scoring and repair boundaries without grading sincerity or predicting recurrence.
At least four of six numeric responses are required. Sum the values and divide by their count; skips are excluded, and a 3 is uncertain or depends. Read this part separately, without a risk grade.
What this part observes
- This part concerns your reports of follow-through after an apology or a promise to adjust. It looks at specific actions, agreed timing, updates and changes after a repeated issue.
- The subject is what you recall doing in the past three months. A result cannot establish sincerity, prove that trust has been restored or tell another person when to move on.
The six statements and their limits
- The six statements cover promises without a plan or time, not reviewing an earlier promise, early effort fading, missed updates, using an apology to end discussion and leaving an unsuccessful approach unchanged.
- They do not tell us whether an agreement was feasible, mutually wanted or safe. Repeated access to another person is not a requirement for showing follow-through; a boundary against contact still matters.
Read the arithmetic with the response count
- This part needs four numeric answers out of six. For 1, 2, 2, 3 with two skips, sum 8 divided by four gives 2.0000. With only three numbers, no sum, mean or personal interpretation is shown.
- Skipping is a valid response and does not imply avoiding responsibility. Three is uncertain or depends. The display threshold is a product rule, without validated cutoffs for sincerity, repair quality or recurrence.
An ordinary situation to examine
- Suppose you promised to send a task update on Friday but did not. Distinguish the missed update, any practical obstacle and whether your plan changed; an apology alone does not record what happened next.
- An obstacle may call for a more workable plan, but it cannot prove that an unmet promise had no effect. Equally, one missed update does not establish a permanent inability to change.
A response does not settle another person’s experience
- Repair is not a transaction that obliges forgiveness, renewed trust or restored contact. Another person may keep a boundary even when you can identify concrete changes in your own behavior.
- A low mean cannot erase a repeated harmful event, and a high mean cannot prove a deliberate false promise. Motive, responsibility and future behavior cannot be established or excluded by this summary.
Similar numbers can describe different situations
- Two equal means may reflect different gaps: a plan without a date, an agreed date without an update, or an unchanged approach after repetition. The useful detail is the specific commitment, not a type label.
- Read the four parts separately. A later change in your answer record is not proof that repair succeeded or recurrence became less likely; direct observations and the other person’s choices remain separate.
One optional, observable next step
- If you choose and it is safe, review one commitment: its action, timing, what happened and any change to the plan. Keep this private and leave any details you cannot verify unresolved.
- One possible step is making your own next action specific and realistic without requesting reassurance. Do not contact someone who asked for no contact to complete this exercise; doing nothing here is also an option.
Limits, privacy and safety
- This original preview remains unvalidated for psychometric or clinical use. It cannot judge character, diagnose a disorder, predict violence or decide whether someone owes continued participation in a relationship.
- No draft, result, analytics or personal-result sharing is used. Real threats, coercion, stalking, violence or urgent safety concerns take priority over promises, scores or retesting and should be met with appropriate support.