What does a report reveal about how they truly feel?
I can't figure out how they really feel about me
Real feelings, poorly signaled.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Grace moves closer when Theo pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: mind reading.
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 53%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Grace
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Theo
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Grace
Most used words by Theo
Favorite emojis of Grace
Favorite emojis of Theo
The relationship analysis
Real feelings, poorly signaled. Theo shows attachment… through channels that Grace doesn't "read" as such. The report translates these signals: the interest is there, the expression is clumsy, not absent. The mechanism is a mismatch of languages rather than a deficit of feeling: Theo invests through acts, reliability and presence, while Grace listens for words — so each proof he gives lands outside the channel she is monitoring. Her doubt then does the rest: what cannot be heard as love is refiled as habit, which keeps the uncertainty alive no matter how much evidence accumulates. Nothing in the exchanges suggests indifference; everything suggests two dialects of the same attachment that have never been translated for one another.
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.
“If he cared about me, he'd say so clearly”
“He does that out of habit, not love”
Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic
Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws
Balance: Balanced
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 55, passion 46 and commitment 64 outlines a "companionate love" profile. One pillar compensates for the others: the relationship holds, but on a single support, which makes it sensitive to shocks.
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: Grace and Theo 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.
Clear cooling of affection: signs of tenderness become scarce on one side.
Relationship outlook
Promising, to be consolidated
Positive factors
- + Reliable, steady commitment (64) — the kind that shows over weeks, not in single grand gestures
- + Very healthy positive ratio (5.4:1), above the benchmark associated with durable couples
- + Disagreements repaired without contempt, which protects the bond from its worst predictor
Risk factors
- - The unspoken keeps Grace's doubt alive: left unaddressed, she may exhaust herself testing a bond that was never actually in question
- - Discounting the positive (41) makes the proof of interest go unnoticed: over time, this filter can turn a solid relationship into a lived experience of insecurity
- - Few direct declarations on either side: without at least occasional explicitness, each ambiguity gets resolved by imagination rather than by the other person
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
« When you let me know you'll be home late, I worry less — thank you. »
Observation + positive impact: reinforces the desired behavior without demanding.
« I would have liked us to talk about it first; I felt presented with a fait accompli. »
Expresses the feeling and the need for consultation without attacking the person.
Both often manage to connect fact, emotion and need — this is what allows tensions to be defused before they escalate.
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.
Grace and Theo do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 53/100). 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 Grace and Theo, 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.
Grace
Theo
For Grace as for Theo, enlarging the "open" area — saying what one feels, asking for feedback — mechanically reduces the misunderstandings of the blind and hidden areas.
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.
Grace
Theo
For Grace and Theo, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Grace 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 | Grace | Theo |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 38 | 21 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 12 | 21 |
| Emotional deprivation | 33 | 21 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 22 | 18 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 6 | 0 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 38 | 5 |
| Approval-seeking | 30 | 8 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 12 | 25 |
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
DailyGrace and Theo: 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
- ✓Reliable, steady commitment (64) — the kind that shows over weeks, not in single grand gestures
- ✓Very healthy positive ratio (5.4:1), above the benchmark associated with durable couples
- ✓Disagreements repaired without contempt, which protects the bond from its worst predictor
- ✓A genuinely balanced dynamic: neither pursuit nor withdrawal has taken hold
- ✓Theo's secure base (63) means the reserve is stylistic, not defensive — explicitness can be learned here
Points to watch
- !The unspoken keeps Grace's doubt alive: left unaddressed, she may exhaust herself testing a bond that was never actually in question
- !Discounting the positive (41) makes the proof of interest go unnoticed: over time, this filter can turn a solid relationship into a lived experience of insecurity
- !Few direct declarations on either side: without at least occasional explicitness, each ambiguity gets resolved by imagination rather than by the other person
- !Mind reading (47) supplies Theo with intentions he has not expressed: acted on, it produces reactions to conversations that never happened
- !If the mismatch of languages is never named, Theo may read Grace's requests for words as doubt about him — and grow quieter exactly when she needs him to be clearer
What the report answers
What does the attachment style reveal in this case?
Theo is secure (63) with an avoidant (44) tint: he holds on, but expresses little. This isn't indifference — it's a style where attachment shows through actions more than words. The practical consequence is hopeful: an avoidant tint on a secure base softens with safety, not with pressure. The more the exchanges make explicitness feel low-stakes, the more of it Theo is likely to produce; the more it is demanded as proof, the more he will retreat into the acts he trusts. The figures describe a partner who can learn Grace's language — provided it is requested as a preference, not set as an exam.
What red flags does the report detect?
Discounting the positive at 41: every sign of attention gets reinterpreted as "habit." That's the filter keeping the uncertainty alive — the report makes it visible. Making it visible is the point, because this distortion is self-sealing: any proof that gets through is downgraded, so no amount of proof can end the doubt from outside. What interrupts it is naming it in the moment — catching the thought "that's just habit" and checking it against the pattern of weeks. Left running, the same filter would read even a direct declaration as politeness; noticed, it loses most of its force.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
Commitment at 64 and a Gottman ratio of 5.4: objectively, the signs of interest are there. Grace's doubt comes less from the facts than from how she reads them. That distinction matters going forward: a problem of facts calls for changing the relationship, a problem of reading calls for changing the conversation. With Commitment and the ratio at these levels, the risk here is not a hidden disengagement but a manufactured one — a bond gradually strained by a suspicion it never earned. The scores argue for adjusting the lens before questioning the landscape.
Clear up the doubt about their feelings → Analyze our conversation
Analyze our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from $2.19
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.