Separate facts, stories, and impact
See this course’s project requirements
A conflict-repair portfolio with a fact record, listening script, interests map, voluntary agreement, repair and escalation plan, and follow-up review.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- A fact-and-impact record with interpretations separated and a neutral opening question.
- A listening script with two paraphrases, two process questions, and a corrected understanding.
- An interests-and-boundaries map with two provisional arrangements and unresolved agreement details.
- A voluntary team agreement with deadline, ownership, confirmation, access fallback, and a review point.
- A repair statement and escalation map distinguishing ordinary disagreement, authority limits, and unsafe conduct.
- A conflict-repair portfolio with two-cycle evidence, a revised handoff process, and a specific reflection.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- Fact discipline: separates observations, reported explanations, interpretations, and work impact without assigning unsupported motives.
- Listening and boundaries: uses correctable paraphrases, identifies practical interests, and preserves privacy, availability, safety, and the option to seek support.
- Agreement quality: chooses a time that fits both research and review constraints, specifies each role’s actions, and includes confirmation, fallback, consent, and a review point.
- Repair and follow-up: acknowledges impact without demanding forgiveness, routes threats or authority issues appropriately, and evaluates the two sample cycles against observable terms.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Disagreements can grow when a guess is treated as a fact. A missed handoff could involve changed instructions, an access problem, other commitments, or a mistake. Start with what happened and how it affected the work. This method is for ordinary disagreements; threats, intimidation, harassment, or unsafe conditions need appropriate support and reporting.
An observation is different from the explanation you attach to it.
One step at a time.
Use the sample or information you have permission to use. Keep your work as you go. You can pause between steps.
- 1
Divide a page into four columns: what was observed, what someone said happened, what someone thinks it means, and the effect on the work. Sort the deadline, folder check, later message, and judgment about character into those columns.
- 2
Write the impact as the specific work affected, such as review starting late. Avoid exaggerating one missed handoff into a permanent pattern unless the supplied evidence actually contains repeated incidents.
- 3
List two plausible explanations that would require checking, including access failure and unclear fallback instructions. Possibilities are questions, not excuses or conclusions; keep them distinct from the event record.
- 4
Draft a neutral opening that names the event and asks what happened. Add a boundary note that this conversation practice is inappropriate if there are threats, coercion, or safety concerns requiring another support route.
See how it works.
Fictional practice: A school or community team agreed that Ren would put a draft in the shared folder by 4 p.m. At 4:10, Mo checked the folder and found no draft. At 4:20, Ren sent a message saying the draft was saved locally because folder access failed. Mo’s first note says “Ren does not care.” The revised record says “No draft was visible at 4:10; review could not begin.” Ren’s message is recorded as a reported explanation, not proof that every technical detail is known. The team now has a concrete access and handoff question to resolve without making a claim about character.
Did you cover these?
- Four information types are distinguished
- Impact names delayed work
- The opening asks rather than accuses
What to finish
A fact-and-impact record with interpretations separated and a neutral opening question.
Watch for this
Treating a guess about someone’s motives as an observed event.
How can I tell I understand it?
You can demonstrate all three checks using your lesson deliverable and explain the reason for each decision.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkTools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-10
Read interests, listening, options, agreed criteria, and mediator sections. We use these only for ordinary voluntary teamwork disagreements; threats and coercion are explicitly excluded from negotiation practice.
Access: Public reading verified without an account; optional further reading, no paid course or certificate required.
Reuse: Reference only; original Life Starter explanations and practice. Public access is not permission to copy materials or logos.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-10
Opened and read reporting and case-specific evaluation information. Page states it is under review. Used only to distinguish reporting concerns from ordinary task disagreements; no legal test, filing deadline, or coverage determination is taught.
Access: Public reading verified without an account; optional further reading, no paid course or certificate required.
Reuse: Reference only; original Life Starter explanations and practice. Public access is not permission to copy materials or logos.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.