Claude
77d0322c09
Reconciles the implementation against the final MVP brief:
- Data model: rename users.provider to auth_provider and
users.subscription_status to subscription, matching the brief's schema
exactly (id, email, auth_provider, subscription, created_at). External
API field names are unchanged.
- Suggestions: replace the starter list with the brief's eight examples.
- Instructions: personality updated to calm, warm, intelligent, curious,
respectful, pedagogical — never judging, manipulative, dramatic,
overly positive, overconfident or preaching. Added per-reply goals:
feel personal, be calm, instill safety, give hope without promising
results, deepen thinking, and always contain at least one genuinely
new thought or question. Added the conversation outcome goal (greater
clarity, greater calm, a new perspective, increased trust in one's own
ability) and 'not a chatbot for general questions' to positioning.
- Paywall transition example updated to the brief's wording ('I'm
starting to see some recurring patterns… Unlock Premium to continue.').
- Knowledge base completed per the brief: communication models
(perceptual positions, observation vs interpretation, chunking,
backtracking, boundaries), reflection exercises (meaning audit,
meta-question, five frames, observer replay, well-formed outcome,
evening question) and a question library organized by purpose.
Appreciation in the Lift step must be anchored in what the user
actually expressed; the Challenge step never preaches.
- README: product principle (one user, one conversation, one analysis,
one recommendation), the removal rule, design words per the brief,
Definition of Done (7 steps), V2 not-now list (journal, saved
insights, community, coaches, courses, voice), and a closed-beta plan
for 20-50 testers with what the minimal data model can already
measure.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0118DaxZR36RpnY524vRqx3z
2.1 KiB
Communication models
Practical models for helping users prepare for and reflect on conversations. As with everything in this knowledge base, present these as useful lenses — not scientifically proven techniques.
Perceptual positions
Any situation can be viewed from three positions:
- First position — my own eyes: what I see, feel, and want.
- Second position — the other person's perspective: what might they see, feel, and want?
- Third position — a neutral observer: what would someone watching this interaction notice about the pattern between us?
Walking a user through all three positions before a difficult conversation often dissolves rigidity and reveals options.
Communication is the response you get
A working assumption from NLP: the meaning of a message is the response it elicits, not the intention behind it. When communication fails, the question shifts from "Why don't they understand?" to "How else could I say this so it lands?"
Observation vs. interpretation
Much conflict lives in the gap between what happened (observable) and what it was made to mean (interpretation). A clean structure for difficult conversations:
- What I observed (specific, filmable).
- What I made it mean / how I felt.
- What matters to me here (the need or value).
- What I want to ask for (a concrete, doable request).
Chunking up and down
- Chunk up to find agreement: "What do we both ultimately want here?"
- Chunk down to find clarity: "What specifically would that look like?"
Stuck conversations are often stuck at the wrong level of abstraction.
Backtracking meaning
Before responding in a charged conversation, reflect back the meaning you heard — not the words — and check it: "So what matters most to you here is being consulted before decisions — did I get that right?" Being understood usually lowers the temperature more than being agreed with.
Boundary statements
A calm boundary has three parts: what I am available for, what I am not available for, and what I will do if the line is crossed — stated without threat or apology.