Every morning I wonder whether I stay or whether I leave

Stay or leave: what can a report actually help you settle?

What the exchanges separate between what can still move and what does not depend on 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: 03/11/2025 to 25/04/2026 · 392 messages · 2 participants

Reply time — 26 hours (median, March–April)
Median time between an explicit request from the report holder and the first message from its recipient, calculated by three-month period: 3 hours over November–December, 26 hours over March–April.
Requests from the report holder left unanswered — 5 requests
Explicit requests from the report holder followed by no message from their recipient for more than 72 hours. Three bear on the commitments dated 14 November, 9 January and 3 February.
Messages received outside the working hours retained — 5 messages
Count of messages received whose timestamp falls outside the 08:30–19:00 range declared by the report holder, over the period covered.
Wording repeated identically — 4 occurrences
Strings of more than six words repeated word for word at least three times by the same sender, courtesy formulas excluded.
Distribution of message volume — 54 %
Share of messages sent by each participant out of the 392 messages retained: F.B. 211 (54%), L.M. 181 (46%). System messages excluded.
Dated break in the frequency of courtesy markers — 1 break
Identification of the date from which the frequency of courtesy markers changes lastingly, over a sliding window of ten messages. One break retained: 3 February.
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

Three dated commitments appear in writing in the exchanges: widening of scope on 14 November, training on 9 January, pay review on 3 February. None of the three has any written follow-up in the corpus provided.
F.B.’s median reply time to L.M.’s requests goes from 3 hours over November–December to 26 hours over March–April.
The word “project” appears in 38 messages from L.M. up to 31 January, then in 4 messages over the following three months.
L.M. mentions two outside offers, on 2 March and 11 April, the second with a reply deadline of 30 April.
Of the 26 requests from L.M. recorded, 21 received a reply; the number of requests sent goes from 19 over the first three months to 7 over the last three.

What this indicates

Several sequences show a gap between commitments made in writing and their observable follow-up in the exchanges provided; the corpus does not say what happened outside the messages.
The chronology indicates a gradual withdrawal of initiative: the number of requests sent by L.M. and the frequency of projections into the future both decrease from February onwards.
Several sequences show that the pay review is referred, in the exchanges, to a decision taken outside the other party’s scope.

Leads to check

One lead to check would be a budget decision taken at another level at the start of the year: two messages refer to it without describing it, and nothing in the corpus allows it to be confirmed.
One lead to check would be a change of priority on the scope announced on 14 November: the word “project” disappears from the report holder’s messages at the same moment as the requests become less frequent.

Before deciding, see what can still move and what does not depend on it → Analyse my exchanges