My manager’s tone has changed and I no longer know whether the problem comes from me

My manager’s tone has changed: what can a record of facts say about it?

Reconstructed case: the exchanges, dates and participants are fictional data, written to show the structure of the document. No real person, team or company is described here.

The record of facts

Period covered: 02/02/2026 to 01/05/2026 · 486 messages · 2 participants

Messages received outside the working hours retained — 17 messages
Count of messages received whose timestamp falls outside the 09:00–18:00 range declared by the report holder, from 9 March to 30 April. System messages excluded.
Messages received on a Saturday or a Sunday — 4 messages
Count of messages received whose date falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, over the period covered.
Requests from the report holder left unanswered — 4 requests
Explicit requests from the report holder followed by no message from the other party for more than 72 working hours. The longest delay recorded is eleven working days.
Wording repeated identically — 6 occurrences
Strings of more than six words repeated word for word at least three times by the same sender, courtesy formulas excluded.
Dated break in the frequency of courtesy markers — 1 break
Identification of the date from which the frequency of courtesy markers and the form of address change lastingly, over a sliding window of ten messages. A single break is retained: 9 March.
Distribution of message volume — 59 %
Share of messages sent by each participant out of the 486 messages retained: J.D. 288 (59%), R.L. 198 (41%). System messages excluded.
Exits from a thread or channel, dated — not applicable to this material
Detection of a thread with several recipients in which the report holder was present and then is no longer. The corpus provided contains only two participants: the measure does not apply.
Share of messages addressed to a group — not applicable to this material
Ratio between messages addressed to a channel with at least three recipients and those addressed directly. No group channel in the corpus provided.
Back-to-back turns in a group channel — not applicable to this material
Share of speaking turns taken over by another participant in less than 40 seconds without picking up the subject of the previous one, in a group channel. No group channel in the corpus provided.

This document is an automatically generated record of facts, based on the exchanges you provided. It is neither an expert assessment, nor legal advice, nor a legal characterisation. Workplace harassment, discrimination and similar characterisations are legal determinations that belong to the competent authorities. For any action, contact your labour inspectorate, occupational physician, staff representative or a lawyer. The measures shown here cover only the exchanges submitted: they do not reflect the full context of your situation.

The report

What is observed

From 9 March onwards, J.D.’s messages shift to a formal form of address; the informal form was used across the previous 154 messages.
17 messages were received after 20:00 over the six weeks following 9 March, 4 of them on a Sunday.
Four written requests from R.L. concerning the scope of their role went unanswered for eleven working days.
The wording “we’ll come back to it at the right time” recurs word for word 6 times between 12 March and 24 April.
Of the 13 requests from R.L. examined after 9 March, 11 call for prior approval; of the 12 examined before that date, 3 did.

What this indicates

Several sequences show reduced decision latitude after 9 March on matters that until then fell within the role held, without the exchanges provided allowing the cause to be established.
The distribution of speaking turns indicates an exchange that became asymmetrical over the second half of the period: 288 messages sent by J.D. against 198 by R.L., with the gap widening after 9 March.
Several sequences show that the information needed for a task arrives after that task has begun: 6 sequences out of 9 examined.

Leads to check

One lead to check would be a reorganization that took place in early March: the change of register is contemporaneous with it, but no message in the corpus mentions it.
A second lead, to check with a third party, would be a redefinition of the role’s scope decided elsewhere: the four requests for clarification that went unanswered all bear on this point.

That change of tone is dated by your own exchanges. See what a record of facts says about it, and what it does not → Analyse my exchanges