If you are not safe Call 9-8-8 Text 9-8-8 911
more Kids Help Phone 1-800-668-6868 Text CONNECT to 686868 Hope for Wellness 1-855-242-3310
SESSION 14 OF 17

Conflict and Repair Scenarios

A skills group, not therapy. Your facilitator is a peer, not a clinician.

The Dichotomy of Control, in conflict

Before engaging in any conflict, separate two categories:

Within your power Not within your power
Your words Their response
Your timing Their willingness to engage
Your tone Their interpretation of your words
Your willingness to listen Their readiness to change
Your capacity to own your part The outcome of the conversation
Your decision to return after a pause
Your commitment to repair

Direct all energy at the left column. Release the right one. This is not passivity — it is precision.

Notice how long the left column is: you control seven things in any conflict. None of them is the other person.

Almost all conflict exhaustion comes from spending on the right-hand column — rehearsing what they'll say, planning how to make them understand, running the argument in the shower for a week. None of that reaches them. All of it costs you.

Which means changing what counts as success. If success is "they finally understood," your outcome depends on something you don't control. Success is: I was regulated. I named it specifically. I owned my part. I stayed, or I returned. That's a complete outcome, and it's entirely yours.


Scenario 1 — Recurring argument with a partner

  1. Identify the repeating pattern (Chapter 5). What happens first, second, third?
  2. Name your part without naming theirs"my part in this pattern is…"
  3. Before the next occurrence: run the Body Reset. Regulate before engaging.
  4. Use the conflict protocol"when [specific behaviour], I felt [specific emotion]. What I need is [specific request]."
  5. If flooding occurs"I need ten minutes. I will come back."
  6. After: run the Repair Protocol regardless of who "started" it.

Step 2 is the whole scenario. Without naming theirs — most attempts at this become a case for the prosecution with one concession attached. And "who started it" is a question with no useful answer: every recurring argument has been running long enough that the start is unrecoverable.

Scenario 2 — Workplace disagreement

  1. Regulate before responding. Never respond in the first ninety seconds of anger.
  2. Use assertiveness"I see this differently. Here is my perspective: [specific, first person]."
  3. Find the part that is true in their position before defending yours.
  4. If it escalates"I want to resolve this well. Can we schedule twenty minutes to discuss it properly?"
  5. Close the Loop for having engaged directly rather than avoiding.

Ninety seconds is roughly the neurological peak of anger without fuel. Email is where this rule gets broken most, because you can respond in eleven seconds.

Scenario 3 — Repairing with a child after you lost your temper

  1. Wait until you are regulated. Do not repair while still activated.
  2. Get to their level physically.
  3. Name what happened"I lost my temper. I raised my voice. That was not okay."
  4. Own the impact"I can see that scared you / hurt your feelings / made you feel unsafe."
  5. Commit"Next time, I will take a pause before I respond."
  6. Reconnect"I love you. Can I have a hug / sit with you / read with you?"

Step 3 has no qualifier in it. No "but you were…". The moment a repair acquires a "but," it stops being a repair and becomes a negotiation.

Scenario 4 — Rebuilding trust after betrayal

  1. Stabilise first — the Nexus Protocol (Chapter 8), before attempting any repair conversation.
  2. Separate repair from reconciliation. Repair is the internal process. Reconciliation requires changed behaviour from both parties.
  3. The person who broke trust: full accountability. No minimising. No "but you…"
  4. The person whose trust was broken: name what is needed to rebuild. Be specific.
  5. Both: timeline. Trust rebuilds through consistent small actions over time — not through a single conversation.

Step 5 is the one that saves people. After a betrayal both parties usually want one conversation to fix it, and it cannot. Knowing that in advance stops the failure of the big conversation from being read as proof it's hopeless.

Fast version

Regulate before you speak. Sort: what is within my power, what is not? Name the specific issue — not the person. Own your part first.

"Repair the connection. Protect the relationship."


Why it works

Unresolved conflict is a physical load. It maintains chronic sympathetic activation — the body carries the rupture as sustained tension, disrupted sleep, and hypervigilance around that specific person. The repair process provides a completion signal that lets the activation resolve.

The dichotomy redirects attention from the uncontrollable (their response) to the controllable (your words, timing, tone, and willingness to repair), which removes the frustration of trying to change what cannot be changed by that effort.

"The problem is the problem" — not the other person. Externalising the issue lets both people address the behaviour without attacking the relationship. "We have a pattern that keeps doing this to us" lands completely differently from "you keep doing this to me."

Willingness to repair, more than the absence of conflict, predicts relational health across every type of relationship.


If you are supporting someone else

The script

"Before this conversation: what is within your power and what is not?" "What is your part — even if it is only ten percent?" "What does repair look like to the other person? Have you asked?"

Never say this

Don't Why it fails
"You need to forgive and forget." Imposes a timeline on a process
"It takes two to tango." Deflects specific accountability
"Get over it." Dismisses the injury

Operational Rule

Repair the connection. Protect the relationship.


This week — one thing

Pick one scenario. Run it once. Not all four.

And the chapter's question, worth sitting with: what would the relationship look like if you repaired this one specific thing — not the whole history, just this one thing?

In the workbook: WB 2.14b dichotomy of control · WB 8.5 blank conflict protocol · WB 8.6 blank repair protocol.

If you need next: The conflict is escalating beyond repair → Chapter 17. The conflict is part of a repeating loop → Chapter 5. You need co-regulation before engaging → Chapter 12.


Next week: Shutdown, Panic, Anger, Grief and Shame — the high-intensity states. The heaviest session apart from the last one. Go as shallow as you like, pass on anything, step out any time. We will not be acting anything out.


Equipped With Agency · Session 14 of 17 · Next week: Shutdown, Panic, Anger, Grief, and Shame