Truth & Typing: A Playbook for Repairing Relationships & Teams
Share
Truth > Typing: A Playbook for Repairing Relationships & Teams
Thesis: Boundaries are respect, not rejection. Use facts → impacts → needs → offers to resolve conflict without rage or ghosting.
AI Key Takeaways
- 4-Move Repair: Facts → Impacts → Needs → Offers reduces blame and unlocks options.
- Meeting Hygiene: neutral venue, time-boxed agenda, live notes, and “next step or closure” rule.
- Accountability Map: define who did what, when, impact, and repair path—before you talk.
- Escalation Ladder: self-repair → guided repair → mediation → formal route → exit with dignity.
- Safeguarding First: if there’s risk of harm, pause the playbook and signpost to professional help.
- 7-Day Sprint: prep (days 1–2), talk (day 3), agreements (day 4), proof (days 5–6), review/close (day 7).
1) Executive Summary
Conflict is inevitable; drama is optional. This playbook turns difficult conversations into repeatable operations you can run at home, in teams, and across community settings. It is built around a minimal core—facts → impacts → needs → offers—supported by explicit meeting hygiene, an escalation ladder, written repair agreements, and verifiable follow-through.
What you’ll get in this series:
- Prep & Framing: separate story vs facts; draw an accountability map; choose venue/time.
- Conversation Scripts: request, boundary, and consequence scripts for family/teams.
- Escalation Ladder: when self-repair fails, move to guided/mediated/formal options.
- Repair Agreements: expectations, timelines, and verification signals in one page.
- Follow-Through & Review: proof, reflection, closure vs looping rules.
- Team Conflict OS: norms, roles, and runbooks so culture doesn’t depend on heroes.
- Safeguarding & Duty of Care: basics and signposting for charities/community groups.
- Templates & Worksheets: prep sheet, note doc, repair agreement, mini-RACI.
- Execution Framework: a 7-Day Repair Sprint with day-by-day steps.
Outcomes you can track: fewer escalations, faster time-to-repair, consistent written agreements, and better retention/trust signals across your home or organisation.
2) Prep & Framing
Preparation shrinks drama. Before any conversation, do three things: disentangle story from facts, map accountability, and set hygienic conditions for the meeting.
2.1 Story vs Facts
Story is your interpretation; facts are observable and time-stamped. Write both, then reduce the story load until what remains would be recognisable on a body-cam.
- Story examples: “They don’t respect me.” “She always undermines me.”
- Fact examples: “3 deadlines missed (5, 12, 26 Aug).” “Slack message, 09:12, ‘You’re incompetent.’”
Mini-exercise: Create a two-column note: Left = Story. Right = Facts. Delete 80% of story; keep what you can ground in evidence.
2.2 Accountability Map
Map who did what, when, the impact, and the desired repair. Aim for neutral language and verifiable events.
| Who | What (fact) | When | Impact | Desired Repair |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person A | Missed deliverables (3) | 5/12/26 Aug | Client delay; team overtime | Commit dates + buffer; handover SOP |
| Person B | Public criticism (Slack) | 09:12 2 Sep | Psych safety dip; avoidance | Use private channel; feedback window |
Rule: No diagnoses, labels, or mind-reading in the map. Describe behaviours and effects.
2.3 Meeting Hygiene
- Neutral venue: avoid power seating. If remote, cameras on, notifications off.
- Agenda: three bullets max: issue, impact, ask.
- Time box: 30–45 minutes; one clear decision or next step.
- Live notes: one person writes shared notes all can see.
- Phones: Do Not Disturb. VIP exceptions only.
- Exit options: If emotions spike, schedule a 24-hour pause rather than blow up.
2.4 The 4-Move Frame
This is the spine of the whole playbook:
- Facts: “What happened” in neutral terms.
- Impacts: concrete effects on work, safety, time, cost, trust.
- Needs: what must change to prevent a repeat.
- Offers: proposals you are willing to trial (with timelines).
Open with facts, then name impacts, request needs, and table offers. End by asking for their offers or alternatives.
2.5 Pre-Meeting Checklist (Printable)
- ✅ Two-column note complete (Story vs Facts).
- ✅ Accountability map drafted with dates/screenshots where relevant.
- ✅ Agenda (3 bullets) + time box (45m max).
- ✅ Neutral venue booked; shared notes doc link ready.
- ✅ Clear ask (what “good” looks like in one sentence).
- ✅ Safeguarding screen: any risk of harm? If yes → pause and signpost.
2.6 Framing Lines You Can Use
- “I want to repair this, not win it. Can we walk through facts → impacts → needs → offers?”
- “If it gets heated, let’s call a pause and resume tomorrow. The goal is a workable plan.”
- “I’ll write live notes so we leave with next steps we both recognise.”
Disclaimer: Educational material only. Not legal, medical, or clinical advice. For emergencies or immediate risk, use your local emergency services.
Series hub: /community/repair. Slug: /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Do not change.
Part 2 — Conversation Scripts
Ready-to-use language for accountability conversations: requests, boundaries, and consequences. Each script follows the facts → impacts → needs → offers frame, with safety signposts built in.
3) Conversation Scripts
Scripts are not theatre—they are scaffolds. The point is to keep the conversation anchored in facts and offers instead of accusations. Use them as prompts, then adapt tone and detail.
3.1 Request Script
Frame: I’ve noticed X (fact), it had Y impact, I need Z, here’s an offer.
3.2 Boundary Script
Frame: I respect you, and I’m drawing this line. If X happens again, I will do Y.
3.3 Consequence Script
Frame: We set agreements, they weren’t met. Here’s the consequence, and here’s how repair can still happen.
3.4 Universal Openers
- “I’m not here to fight; I’m here to solve.”
- “Let’s anchor on facts, not stories.”
- “Can we try the four-move frame: facts, impacts, needs, offers?”
3.5 Tone Calibration
Scripts collapse if tone is sarcastic or loaded. Use neutral delivery: steady voice, slow pace, short sentences. Imagine writing a police log, not a poem.
3.6 Script Hygiene
- One ask per script. Don’t pile three issues into one request.
- Time-stamp facts. Attach dates/screenshots where appropriate.
- Exit clause. If repair fails twice, move up the escalation ladder instead of looping.
Reminder: Scripts help contain emotion, but if the situation involves harm, abuse, or safeguarding concerns, pause the script and refer to professional help or formal channels.
Part 3 — Escalation Ladder
When self-repair fails, move step by step: self-repair → guided repair → mediation → formal route → exit with dignity. The ladder prevents infinite loops and avoids premature blow-ups.
4) Escalation Ladder
The Escalation Ladder is a structured sequence that ensures fairness, prevents looping, and keeps safeguarding visible. Each rung has its own conditions and signals.
Use the scripts (facts → impacts → needs → offers). Hold one or two conversations. If progress fails twice, escalate.
Invite a neutral peer or manager to witness. Their job is not to arbitrate, but to hold structure and keep notes.
Engage a trained mediator (internal or external). Both parties agree ground rules; mediator documents outcomes.
Escalate to formal HR, charity safeguarding lead, or legal pathway. Outcomes may include investigation, formal warnings, or protective measures.
If repair fails, agree exit terms respectfully (role change, transfer, ending collaboration). Document so history doesn’t repeat.
4.1 Triggers to Escalate
- Two failed repair attempts with no behaviour change.
- Escalating impact (e.g., client harm, safeguarding concerns).
- Power imbalance too steep for direct conversation.
- Risk of reputational damage or legal exposure.
4.2 Guardrails
- Safeguarding overrides speed. If harm risk surfaces, jump straight to Step 4.
- No skipping Step 5. Exit is not failure—it is a form of repair when trust cannot be rebuilt.
- Written notes at every rung. Shared documentation prevents revisionist memory.
4.3 Escalation Language Examples
Reminder: Escalation is not punishment—it is a safeguard. Each rung ensures both dignity and safety. Always check if a professional pathway is required under your organisation’s safeguarding duty.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Part 4 — Repair Agreements
A repair agreement is the bridge between conversation and change. It sets expectations, timelines, and verification signals in one page, preventing endless looping.
5) Repair Agreements
Verbal promises collapse under stress. A repair agreement is a short, written, and mutually signed note that translates conversation into trackable commitments.
5.1 Core Components
- Expectation: what exactly changes (behaviour/task).
- Timeline: when it starts, how long it runs, checkpoints.
- Verification: how proof is shown (metrics, screenshots, behaviour logs).
- Review date: when both parties meet again to confirm progress.
- Fallback: what happens if the agreement is broken.
5.2 Sample Repair Agreement Table
| Expectation | Timeline | Verification | Review Date | Fallback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private feedback, no public Slack comments | Immediate; ongoing | Channel logs checked weekly | 2 weeks from today | Escalate to guided repair with manager |
| Deliverables with 24h buffer notice | From next sprint (start: 18 Sep) | Shared project tracker | 1 month checkpoint | Reassign tasks + formal warning |
5.3 Why It Works
- Clarity: no ambiguity; both can point to the same line.
- Accountability: proof doesn’t rely on memory.
- Fairness: both sides can insert needs and offers.
5.4 Writing Tips
- Keep it under one page—brevity forces clarity.
- Use neutral language: describe actions, not personalities.
- Date and sign, even digitally. It signals seriousness.
- Store in a shared, secure space (e.g., team drive).
5.5 Repair Agreement Language
Openers you can use:
- “To avoid looping, let’s put this in writing.”
- “This isn’t about mistrust—it’s about clarity for both of us.”
- “Let’s agree how we’ll verify so neither of us is guessing.”
Reminder: A repair agreement is not a legal contract. It is a practical accountability tool. If issues involve safeguarding, discrimination, or legal risk, escalate to formal processes.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Part 5 — Follow-Through & Review
Repair ends only when actions match agreements. Follow-through means proof, reflection, and a clear decision: closure or escalation.
6) Follow-Through & Review
Without follow-through, agreements are just paperwork. This stage tests whether commitments are real, closes loops, and prevents endless cycles of the same issue.
6.1 Proof of Action
Verification signals:
- Project tracker updates (timestamps).
- Email confirmations or shared doc activity.
- Behaviour logs (e.g., no public criticism for X weeks).
- Third-party witness notes.
Proof should be visible and shared. No secret “trust me” metrics. The more objective, the faster trust recovers.
6.2 Review Meetings
- Keep it short (15–20m).
- Use the same four-move frame: facts, impacts, needs, offers.
- Check agreement items one by one, tick or cross.
- Decide: continue, adapt, or escalate.
6.3 Reflection Questions
At review, ask:
- “What improved?”
- “What still hurts?”
- “What do we need to prevent looping?”
- “Do we have proof or just promises?”
6.4 Closure vs Looping
Closure = proof of change + acknowledgement + no repeat. Looping = same issue resurfaces after two repair cycles. Rule: if it loops twice, escalate to the next ladder step.
6.5 Documentation Discipline
- Save agreements and review notes in a secure shared folder.
- Mark agreements as “Closed”, “In Progress”, or “Escalated”.
- Log dates of review meetings for accountability.
Reminder: Follow-through protects both parties. Closure means dignity is preserved; looping means escalation is required. Don’t leave agreements in limbo.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Part 6 — Team Conflict OS
A Team Conflict OS embeds repair into culture. It sets norms, roles, and rituals so conflict doesn’t depend on individual heroics.
7) Team Conflict OS
Teams need an operating system for conflict just like they need one for projects. Without it, disputes depend on personality, hierarchy, or luck. A Conflict OS creates predictability and psychological safety.
7.1 Core Norms
- No surprises: conflict is raised within 48h, not stored for months.
- Neutral notes: all conflict meetings have shared, live documentation.
- One issue at a time: no bundling three grievances into one meeting.
- Closure required: every conflict logged ends in either resolution, escalation, or exit.
7.2 Roles
Runs the four-move frame. Ensures agenda and time box are kept.
Takes live notes in shared doc; ensures agreements are logged and shared.
Neutral team member or manager ensuring fairness; steps in if tone escalates.
Tracks when to climb the ladder (two failed repairs, harm risk, etc).
7.3 Rituals
- Weekly pulse: 10m team check on unresolved tensions.
- Conflict retro: once per quarter, review how conflicts were handled.
- Learning log: team writes anonymised lessons from conflicts into a shared wiki.
7.4 Runbooks
Create written step-by-step guides for:
- How to start a repair conversation.
- How to escalate safely.
- How to document agreements.
- How to close and archive conflicts.
7.5 Metrics
- Time-to-repair: days from issue raised to closure.
- Escalation rate: % of conflicts requiring Step 3+ of ladder.
- Retention signal: turnover pre vs post-repair OS.
- Safety survey: % of team who feel safe raising conflict.
Reminder: A Team Conflict OS works only if leadership models it. Without leadership buy-in, norms collapse. Guardrails still apply: if safeguarding issues arise, bypass OS and escalate.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Part 7 — Safeguarding & Duty of Care
When conflict involves risk of harm, safeguarding overrides repair scripts. Duty of care means protecting participants first, resolving issues second.
8) Safeguarding & Duty of Care
Conflict repair is powerful, but never higher than safety. Safeguarding requires us to pause or bypass the playbook when harm, exploitation, or coercion is suspected.
8.1 Principles
- Safety first: if harm risk emerges, stop repair and escalate.
- Least harm route: choose actions that reduce risk, even if they slow resolution.
- Transparency: tell all parties when safeguarding rules require escalation.
- Documentation: log concerns factually (dates, behaviours, words).
8.2 Common Safeguarding Flags
- Threats of self-harm or harm to others.
- Abuse disclosures (emotional, physical, financial, sexual).
- Power imbalance (adult/child, manager/junior) being exploited.
- Signs of coercion, intimidation, or grooming.
8.3 Duty of Care Checklist
- ✅ Identify risk early (screen at prep stage).
- ✅ Escalate to safeguarding lead or external agency as required.
- ✅ Inform participants why escalation is happening.
- ✅ Document actions and who was informed.
8.4 Safeguarding Escalation Routes
- Charity/Org setting: named safeguarding officer, trustees, Charity Commission reporting.
- Health setting: NHS safeguarding lead, local authority services.
- Family/community: local safeguarding board, social services, police if immediate risk.
8.5 Language Examples
“This conversation triggered a safeguarding concern. For everyone’s safety, I need to escalate to our safeguarding lead before we continue.”
“Because risk of harm is present, we cannot resolve this informally. I’ll document what we’ve discussed and hand it to the appropriate authority.”
Reminder: This playbook is educational, not a substitute for safeguarding protocols. If you believe anyone is at immediate risk, call your local emergency services.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Part 8 — Templates & Worksheets
Good systems rely on templates. This section provides prep sheets, repair agreements, note docs, and mini-RACI tables to make repair repeatable.
9) Templates & Worksheets
9.1 Prep Sheet
| Story | Fact | Impact | Need | Offer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “They don’t respect me” | 3 missed deadlines (5, 12, 26 Aug) | Client delayed, team overworked | Reliable dates | Buffer plan |
9.2 Live Notes Doc
- Date: __________
- Issue: __________
- Impact: __________
- Agreed Actions: __________
- Next Review Date: __________
- Note Keeper: __________
9.3 Repair Agreement Form
| Expectation | Timeline | Verification | Review Date | Fallback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
9.4 Mini-RACI Template
| Task | Responsible | Accountable | Consulted | Informed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepare agenda | A | B | C | Team |
| Write notes | C | B | A | Team |
| Review agreement | B | B | A | Team |
Reminder: These worksheets are educational tools. Use them to structure conversations, but escalate formally when safeguarding or legal risks appear.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Part 9 — Execution Framework: 7-Day Repair Sprint
A 7-Day Repair Sprint compresses preparation, conversation, agreement, proof, and closure into one week. It forces momentum and prevents endless dragging.
10) Execution Framework — 7-Day Repair Sprint
This sprint is not rigid—it is a discipline. It ensures conflicts move quickly from prep → action → closure. If risk of harm surfaces, the sprint halts and safeguarding overrides.
10.1 Guardrails
- If any safeguarding concern arises → pause sprint, escalate immediately.
- If Day 5 proof is missing → flag as breach, move towards escalation.
- If same issue reappears after Day 7 closure → do not restart sprint, escalate.
10.2 Success Metrics
- ✅ % of conflicts closed in 7 days.
- ✅ Drop in repeated issues across quarter.
- ✅ Increase in psychological safety survey scores.
- ✅ Reduction in “silent quit” signals (withdrawal, ghosting).
10.3 Language for the Sprint
- “We’re on Day 3—let’s use the script and keep to 45m.”
- “Today is Day 5. Proof matters—what can we show?”
- “Day 7 means review: closure or escalation. No limbo.”
Reminder: The sprint is an accountability engine. It shortens cycles, reduces stress, and sets a culture where conflicts are not buried. Safety always overrides speed.
Slug remains /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook. Hub: /community/repair.
Final — FAQs & Closing Summary
Short, unambiguous answers to the most common questions about the **Truth > Typing** repair playbook, followed by a crisp close-out and next steps.
FAQs — Unambiguous Answers
Closing Summary — Truth > Typing
What this playbook does
- Replaces blame with facts → impacts → needs → offers.
- Forces clarity via repair agreements and proof.
- Stops loops with a five-step Escalation Ladder.
- Scales culture with a Team Conflict OS (norms, roles, rituals, metrics).
- Prioritises safeguarding whenever risk appears.
- Compresses action into a 7-Day Repair Sprint.
Signals you’re doing it right
- Issues are raised within **48 hours** instead of months later.
- Every meeting ends with **one clear next step** or **closure**.
- Agreements fit on **one page**; verification is obvious.
- Escalations are **measured**, not emotional.
- Psychological safety **scores rise**; gossip and public shaming **fall**.
Common failure modes (and fixes)
- Bundling grievances: Split issues. One meeting, one ask.
- Vague language: Swap labels for behaviour + timestamp.
- Endless loops: Apply the ladder after two failed attempts.
- No proof: Decide verification before the agreement is signed.
- Power plays: Switch to guided repair/mediation early.
Next steps
- Copy the **Prep Sheet** and write your Story vs Facts today.
- Invite the other party with a neutral, time-boxed agenda.
- Use the **Request/Boundary/Consequence scripts** to talk.
- Draft a **one-page repair agreement** with timeline and verification.
- Book the **Day-7 review** now, not later.
Disclaimer: Educational material, not legal/clinical advice. If you suspect harm or exploitation, stop and escalate via safeguarding or emergency services as appropriate.
Series slug (do not change): /blogs/trust/truth-over-typing-repair-playbook
Extended Narrative — Truth > Typing
This is not a checklist. This is a story about why repair matters when communities fracture, when families fall silent, and when teams are torn between fight and flight.
A Room, a Table, and Silence
Every repair begins in silence. Chairs scrape, eyes look down, phones buzz in pockets. It feels safer to type out anger than to speak it aloud. But truth outlives typing. Accountability happens in the room, not the thread.
In one youth charity, two volunteers stopped speaking after a clash during an event. Slack channels filled with passive jabs, and within weeks, the silence had spread — younger members copied the pattern. A trustee intervened, not with punishment, but with a repair sprint. By Day 7, both had co-written a new rota system. Gossip slowed. Safety returned. The culture bent, but it did not break.
When repair happens, silence shrinks. When it doesn’t, silence becomes culture.
The Hardest Sentence
“I want to repair, not win.” — this is the hardest sentence in the playbook. Harder than stating facts, harder than naming impacts. Because it strips away ego and declares: trust matters more than victory.
Teams that adopt this line see disputes shift tone. Families that teach this line prevent grudges from calcifying. Communities that repeat this line out loud inoculate themselves against ghosting and rage cycles.
Repair as Infrastructure
Think of repair not as therapy but as infrastructure. Just as roads need maintenance and bridges need inspection, relationships need scheduled repair. A Team Conflict OS is not bureaucracy — it is civic engineering for trust.
Organisations that invest in this infrastructure retain talent longer, spend less on HR disputes, and show higher resilience in crisis. Families that invest in it pass down not just wealth but the skill of staying whole under pressure.
From Typing to Truth
The digital world tempts us to hide behind typing. Threads stretch on, screenshots get weaponised, emojis replace eye contact. But accountability does not scale through screens. It scales through frameworks, agreements, and ladders that return us to human voice.
Truth is slower than typing, but it sticks longer.
Closing Image
Imagine a team table, notes projected live, agreement signed, and a review already booked. Imagine a family dinner where the hardest sentence — “I want to repair, not win” — is spoken without irony. Imagine a community hall where silence does not fester, because repair has a script, a sprint, and an OS.
This is the Made2Master Trust vision: Boundaries as respect, repair as culture, truth as operating system.
Original Author: Festus Joe Addai — Founder of Made2MasterAI™ | Original Creator of AI Execution Systems™. This blog is part of the Made2MasterAI™ Execution Stack.
🧠 AI Processing Reality…
A Made2MasterAI™ Signature Element — reminding us that knowledge becomes power only when processed into action. Every framework, every practice here is built for execution, not abstraction.
