The principles

These are the rules the product keeps. Each one has a plain meaning and a reason drawn from research.

1. Speak from your own experience.

   A share describes what is true for you: what you feel, think, need or hope, and why. It is not a description of your partner. "You leave the planning to me" is about them; "I feel like I'm carrying the planning" is about you. The coach nudges toward the second, and leaves the meaning yours.

   Research by John Gottman found that how a conflict conversation starts largely predicts how it ends. A share that begins from the writer's own side is a softer start, and the reason is what lets a partner understand rather than defend.

   Sources: Sybil Carrère (1999)

2. Listen to understand.

   Listening here means trying to understand, not preparing an answer. You can reflect what you heard, acknowledge it, say it makes sense, ask what they meant, or add to it. You cannot correct, advise, or push them to admit fault.

   Work by Harry Reis shows that feeling understood, validated and cared for is the core of intimacy. Research by John Gottman also found that paraphrasing, done live in a conflict, was rare and did not predict outcomes. That is why reflection is one option among several, and why the product is written rather than spoken.

   Sources: Harry Reis (2015)John Gottman (1998)

3. Keep the floor with one person at a time.

   One person has the floor at a time. The person who shared decides when they felt understood, and then the floor passes. If you disagree, you get your own turn to say so, as a share, not as a reply.

   The speaker–listener structure, one speaks while the other works to understand and nobody rebuts, is the basis of the most-tested relationship education program, studied by Howard Markman and colleagues.

   Sources: Howard Markman (1993)

4. Respect both perspectives.

   Understanding does not require agreement. The product never decides who is right, never judges whether a concern is reasonable, and never takes sides. Neither does the coach.

   Harry Reis's work on responsiveness is about feeling understood and validated, which is different from being agreed with. John Gottman's research found that de-escalation matters more than winning.

   Sources: Harry Reis (2015)John Gottman (1998)

5. Allow emotion; stop contempt and attacks.

   You can be angry here. You can raise the hardest thing. What you cannot do is mock, label, assign motives, or say "you always". Those are coached, and the worst of them are blocked.

   Across John Gottman's studies, contempt is the strongest single predictor of divorce. Anger itself is not; in his longitudinal work with Lowell Krokoff, anger and open disagreement did not predict decline, while defensiveness and withdrawal did.

   Sources: John Gottman (1998)John Gottman (1989)

6. Make pausing safe.

   Either of you can pause, from any open turn, for at least 20 minutes, and you set a return time. The pause belongs to whoever took it until that time; after it, either of you can resume. Nothing is lost.

   John Gottman and Robert Levenson found that physiological flooding during conflict predicted later dissolution, and that a flooded body needs roughly 20 minutes to settle. A pause with a return time gives that time without leaving things open-ended.

   Sources: John Gottman (1992)

7. Give good things room, too.

   Appreciation and good news get the same floor as hard topics, with their own listening moves: celebrate, ask to hear more, extend. The coach watches for the deflating reply, "that's nice, but…".

   Shelly Gable and colleagues found that how a partner responds to good news predicts relationship wellbeing at least as well as how they handle conflict.

   Sources: Shelly Gable (2004)Shelly Gable (2006)

8. Put safety first.

   If a share describes danger, being hurt at home, or not wanting to be here, coaching stops. The share goes through untouched, the writer sees real resources privately, and a person on our side is told the same day.

   This one is not drawn from a study. It is a limit we chose: a nudge about wording is the wrong response to someone in danger, and this product is not a substitute for specialized help in a relationship with violence.