What does a report reveal when someone vanishes overnight?
He stops replying, from one day to the next
A lively conversation that goes dark all at once.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Ava moves closer when Tom pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: personalization.
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 72%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Ava
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Tom
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Ava
Most used words by Tom
Favorite emojis of Ava
Favorite emojis of Tom
The relationship analysis
A lively conversation that goes dark all at once. The report reads, in the final exchanges, the micro-signals that preceded the disappearance: a gradual withdrawal on Tom's side, an escalation of follow-up messages on Ava's. Ghosting is rarely sudden — it builds up. The mechanism is avoidance taken to its end point: for a profile like Tom's, ending a relationship requires exactly the kind of exposed conversation he has been organising his exchanges to avoid — so the exit happens by evaporation instead. Each spaced-out reply was a step already taken; the final silence merely made the direction visible. Ava's follow-ups, entirely understandable, changed nothing about the outcome, because the decision was never located in anything she said or did. The report's role here is less to save the bond than to give Ava an accurate story to replace the guilty one.
What the messages reveal
Reconstructed excerpts — the report reads each exchange and highlights the underlying pattern.
Relational dimensions
Attachment profile
Gottman’s 4 Horsemen
The lower the score, the better. Above 50 = warning signal.
Cognitive distortions
Thinking biases detected in the conversation
Cognitive distortions (Aaron Beck) are automatic thinking biases that warp our perception of relational reality. A high score indicates a more pronounced presence of this bias.
“It's my fault, I must have said something wrong”
“No one will ever stay”
Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic
Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws
Balance: Strong imbalance
The in-depth analysis
Sternberg’s Triangle
The 3 components of love according to triangular theory.
According to Robert Sternberg, complete love rests on three pillars: intimacy (emotional), passion (physical/romantic) and commitment (decisional). The balance between these three components defines the type of relationship.
The combination of intimacy 43, passion 40 and commitment 34 outlines a "weakened bond" profile. The imbalance between the pillars weakens the whole — one side carries the relationship while the others give way.
5 Love Languages
Predominant love languages of each person (Chapman).
Gary Chapman identifies 5 love languages: words of affirmation, acts of service, gifts, quality time and physical touch. Knowing each partner’s dominant language improves mutual understanding.
Gap: Ava and Tom do not share the same dominant language: one partner's proofs of love sometimes go unnoticed by the other, for want of being expressed through the "right" channel.
Identifying the language actually received (rather than the one we spontaneously give) prevents the feeling of "giving without being loved in return."
Detected breakpoints
Key moments where the dynamic shifted
The emotional timeline pinpoints the key moments where the relational dynamic shifted significantly: conflicts, distancing, reconnections.
First marked tension: reproaches replace the request, the exchange grows tense.
Tom withdraws: short replies then silences, Ava keeps reaching out alone.
The conflict replays the same script without resolution — wear and tear sets in.
Relationship outlook
Guarded
Positive factors
- + Ava kept a respectful tone even in her distress — none of her follow-ups gives her anything to regret
- + No aggression on her part, even where the silence might have excused it
- + Her messages stayed clear and direct: she asked real questions, which means the absence of answers is entirely his
Risk factors
- - Tom's withdrawal (stonewalling 74) is complete and offers no closure: waiting for an explanation this profile almost never provides keeps the wound open on his schedule
- - Personalization (58) makes Ava carry a responsibility that isn't hers: rehearsed long enough, that story hardens into a belief she would take into the next relationship
- - Extreme imbalance at the end (Balance 30): continuing to reach out can only deepen the asymmetry, never correct it
Nonviolent Communication
NVC Score (Rosenberg): use of OFNR format vs judgment/blame.
Nonviolent Communication (Marshall Rosenberg) assesses the ability to express one’s needs and emotions without aggression or judgment. A high score indicates more empathetic communication.
Examples
« You never think about how I feel. »
Generalization ("never") and judgment: the real need (to be taken into account) stays hidden behind the reproach.
« I feel alone when I go a whole day without hearing from you. »
Fact + emotion + need, without accusation: the wording opens dialogue instead of closing it.
Requests come mainly through reproach: the need is real but framed in a way that triggers the other's defensiveness rather than their cooperation.
DISC Profile
Dominant communication style of each person.
The DISC model (W. Marston) classifies behaviors along 4 axes: Dominant (Red — results-oriented), Influential (Yellow — relationship-oriented), Steady (Green — cooperation-oriented) and Conscientious (Blue — precision-oriented). Each has distinct motivations and communication styles.
Ava and Tom do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 34/100). Neither good nor bad — the challenge is to translate from one style to the other: a direct profile gains from slowing down, a relational profile from daring to be explicit.
Karpman’s Triangle
Dominant roles in the relational dynamic (Transactional Analysis).
Karpman’s drama triangle identifies three dysfunctional relational roles: Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. A high score on a role indicates a tendency to adopt it during conflicts.
For Ava and Tom, the victim/rescuer/persecutor roles stay occasional and faint: the relationship is not organized around the drama triangle.
Johari Window
Zones of self-knowledge and knowledge of the other in the relationship.
The Johari window (Luft & Ingham) maps 4 zones of self-knowledge: open (known to all), blind (seen by the other but not by oneself), hidden (known to oneself but not shared) and unknown.
Ava
Tom
For Ava as for Tom, enlarging the "open" area — saying what one feels, asking for feedback — mechanically reduces the misunderstandings of the blind and hidden areas, which are numerous in this case.
Schutz's FIRO
Fundamental relationship needs: expressed vs desired.
Schutz’s FIRO model measures three fundamental interpersonal needs: Inclusion (need to belong), Control (need for power) and Affection (need for closeness), each in an expressed and a wanted version.
Ava
Tom
For Ava and Tom, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Ava waits for an initiative that he/she never openly asks for, while the other does not perceive the need.
Polyvagal Theory
Dominant autonomic nervous system activation state in exchanges (Porges).
Polyvagal theory (S. Porges) distinguishes three states of the nervous system: ventral (connection and safety), sympathetic (fight/flight) and dorsal (freeze/shutdown). These states deeply influence communication within a couple.
The shifts into a sympathetic state (alert) or dorsal state (shutdown) explain the exchanges that "go off the rails": under stress, the nervous system takes precedence over intentions.
Young Schemas
Early maladaptive schemas influence your relational behaviors.
Early maladaptive schemas (Jeffrey Young) are deep emotional patterns formed in childhood that influence our adult relationships. A high score indicates a stronger activation of the schema.
| Schema | Ava | Tom |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 49 | 24 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 17 | 30 |
| Emotional deprivation | 31 | 27 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 34 | 11 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 9 | 16 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 38 | 14 |
| Approval-seeking | 36 | 10 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 14 | 44 |
Personalized action plan
Therapeutic exercises tailored to your relational profile.
This action plan offers progressive exercises, at your own pace, to reinforce your strengths and work on the areas for improvement that were identified.
Understand the cycle
Weeks 1-2Consult a professional
As soon as possibleAn outside perspective helps to name the pattern (pursue-withdraw, unspoken issues) without self-judgment.
Spot the trigger
DailyIdentify the precise moment when the conversation "tips over" — that is where change happens.
Rebalance
Weeks 3-4Slow down the pursuit
DailyAva and Tom: leave room for the other's initiative rather than reaching out into the void.
Frame it in "I"
Whenever tension arisesReplace the reproach ("you never…") with the need ("I need…").
Rebuild trust
Weeks 5-6Dated actions
WeeklyFavor concrete, verifiable commitments over general promises.
Consolidate or decide
Weeks 7-8Take stock
MonthlyAfter two months, assess honestly: has the dynamic shifted, or is it repeating identically?
Strengths
- ✓Ava kept a respectful tone even in her distress — none of her follow-ups gives her anything to regret
- ✓No aggression on her part, even where the silence might have excused it
- ✓Her messages stayed clear and direct: she asked real questions, which means the absence of answers is entirely his
- ✓The warmth in the earlier exchanges was genuine on both sides — the bond was real, not imagined
- ✓Ava's distress stayed proportionate and articulate: the file shows a person confronting a silence, not losing herself in it
Points to watch
- !Tom's withdrawal (stonewalling 74) is complete and offers no closure: waiting for an explanation this profile almost never provides keeps the wound open on his schedule
- !Personalization (58) makes Ava carry a responsibility that isn't hers: rehearsed long enough, that story hardens into a belief she would take into the next relationship
- !Extreme imbalance at the end (Balance 30): continuing to reach out can only deepen the asymmetry, never correct it
- !Catastrophizing (44) — "no one will ever stay" — turns one person's avoidance into a verdict on all future bonds; unchecked, it becomes self-protective distance in relationships that haven't happened yet
- !An eventual low-effort return is a known pattern with this configuration: unprepared for, it would reopen the file on the same asymmetrical terms
What the report answers
What does the attachment style reveal in this case?
Tom peaks as avoidant (71): here, going silent is the extreme form of avoidance — fleeing rather than facing closure. That says a lot about him, not about Ava's worth. Read forward, the score also calibrates expectations: profiles at this level of avoidance rarely come back with the accountable conversation that would give Ava closure — and when contact does resume, it typically restarts at low cost, without addressing the silence. Knowing this in advance converts a possible ambush into a decision Ava can prepare calmly. The asymmetry of the ending was about his tolerance for hard conversations, not about her place in them.
What red flags does the report detect?
Personalization at 58: Ava blames herself ("I must have said something"). The report lifts that guilt — the ghosting is the other person's choice, not a deserved punishment. Undoing it matters beyond this relationship, because personalization is the story that keeps hurting after the event has stopped: it relocates the cause inside the person who was left. The file offers the counter-evidence — her messages were clear, warm and proportionate — and the catastrophizing score (44) shows where the story goes if left alone: from "I did something" to "no one will stay". Correcting the first sentence now is what prevents the second from settling.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
The drop-off is measurable: Communication at 34, Commitment at 33. The ghosting wasn't sudden — the scores show Tom's disinvestment settling in before the cut-off. This matters for how the story gets told afterwards: a sudden ghosting invites the question "what did I do that day?", while a measured decline answers it — nothing dated that day, the exit was already in motion. The gap between Affection (52) and Commitment (33) says the rest: the warmth was real, and the investment was leaving anyway. Those two things can coexist, and their coexistence is exactly what the silence made unreadable.
Ghosting or just a pause? Understand what happened -> Analyze our messages
Analyze our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from $2.19
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.