Skip to main content

What does a report say after a betrayal?

After an infidelity, can I still trust him?

Reconstructed case for educational purposes100% fictional data, real clinical patterns. No real conversation.
The report's verdict

After the betrayal, two movements coexist: a genuine will to repair and a painful hypervigilance.

55/100
Catastrophizing — higher than 77% of the couples analyzed
3.4:1
Positive/negative ratio — healthy threshold at 5:1
56%
of the re-engagement bids come from Clara
What this report reveals
  • Each partner's true attachment profile: why Clara moves closer when Clara pulls away.
  • The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: catastrophizing.
  • Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 56%).

Conversation statistics

💬
1,131
Messages
📝
17,530
Words exchanged
📅
87
Days
📈
13
Messages / day
03 May 2026
First message
Clara
24 Sept 2026
Last message
Yann
28 j
Longest streak
without a break
6.1 min
Average response time
Clara

Message distribution

Clara593 msgs (52%)
15.7 words/msg166 emojis103 questions
Yann538 msgs (48%)
15.3 words/msg65 emojis86 questions

Evolution over time

Activity by hour

Activity by day

Heat map

Activity by day and hour

0h
4h
8h
12h
16h
20h
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Less
More

Expressions from Clara

Most frequent bigrams and trigrams

1.
"where are you?"x22
2.
"I've been thinking"x15
3.
"how are you?"x14
4.
"can we talk?"x10

Expressions from Yann

Most frequent bigrams and trigrams

1.
"where are you?"x29
2.
"can we talk?"x26
3.
"I've been thinking"x14
4.
"how are you?"x13

Most used words by Clara

1.
tomorrow50
2.
time48
3.
maybe35
4.
need32
5.
us32
6.
understood31
7.
try26
8.
talk25
9.
listen25
10.
you20

Most used words by Yann

1.
time52
2.
listen42
3.
you39
4.
try34
5.
tomorrow31
6.
talk28
7.
understood20
8.
maybe17
9.
need16
10.
us16

Favourite emojis of Clara

🥰
x53
😘
x52
❤️
x48
😍
x48
😊
x34

Favourite emojis of Yann

🙂
x66
❤️
x64
😅
x61
🤔
x55
😴
x38

The relationship analysis

47
Overall relationship score · Clara & Yann
Fragile rebuilding

After the betrayal, two movements coexist: a genuine will to repair and a painful hypervigilance. The report distinguishes the signs of a possible rebuilding (ownership taken, transparency) from the signals of a forgiveness that is impossible for now.

What the messages reveal

Reconstructed excerpts — the report reads each exchange and highlights the underlying pattern.

Clara
You've been pretty quiet lately… is everything okay between us?
Anxious pursuitA bid for reassurance typical of anxious attachment (Clara, 63/100): Clara seeks to restore closeness as soon as a doubt appears.
Clara
Yeah, I'm fine, just a lot of work right now.
Avoidant withdrawalA short reply that defuses without opening up: avoidance (Clara, 34/100). It is not (necessarily) a rejection — it is a way of regulating a closeness that feels unsafe.
Clara
If he comes home late, he's doing it again
CatastrophizingCatastrophizing (55/100) — higher than 77% of the couples analyzed. An ambiguous signal is turned into proof, without verification.
Clara
I know he's still thinking about her
Mind readingMind reading (46/100). This filter sustains doubt even though the facts themselves are ambiguous.

Relational dimensions

Commitment at 58 (both want it) but Conflict at 40: the will is there, the regulation of the reminders of the betrayal is not yet.

Attachment profile

Gottman’s 4 Horsemen

The lower the score, the better. Above 50 = warning signal.

Positive/negative ratio: 3.4:1(healthy threshold = 5:1)
Ratio at 3.4 and defensiveness at 58: the rebuilding is underway but fragile. The point to watch: the contempt (33) that rises when the repair stalls -- it is contempt, not anger, that makes forgiveness fail.

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.

LowModerateHigh
Catastrophizing
Moderate55/100

If he comes home late, he's doing it again

Mind reading
Moderate46/100

I know he's still thinking about her

Catastrophizing at 55: every ambiguous signal is read as a relapse. That is normal after a betrayal -- but as long as this filter dominates, trust cannot be rebuilt.

Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic

Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws

Clara (pursues)Yann (withdraws)
56%
44%

Balance: Slight imbalance

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.

Intimacy55/100
Passion38/100
Commitment53/100
Relationship type: Liking / friendship

The combination of intimacy 55, passion 38 and commitment 53 outlines a "liking / friendship" 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.

Words of Affirmation
Clara
88
Yann
37
Acts of Service
Clara
60
Yann
72
Gifts
Clara
58
Yann
53
Quality Time
Clara
70
Yann
60
Physical Touch
Clara
51
Yann
58

Gap: Clara and Yann 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.

21 May 2026Medium

First marked tension: reproaches replace the request, the exchange grows tense.

📉
28 June 2026High

Clear cooling of affection: signs of tenderness become scarce on one side.

Relationship prognosis

Guarded

50/100

Positive factors

  • + Yann takes ownership of the responsibility without dodging
  • + An explicit commitment to rebuild
  • + The dialogue is not broken

Risk factors

  • - Clara's hypervigilance (catastrophizing 55) is wearing down the bond
  • - The conflict replays the betrayal on a loop
  • - Contempt (33) rises when the repair stalls

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.

52
Clara
NVC Score /100
45
Yann
NVC Score /100

Examples

✓ NVCClara

« When you let me know you'll be home late, I worry less — thank you. »

Observation + positive impact: reinforces the desired behavior without demanding.

✓ NVCYann

« 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.

Dominant (D)
Clara
26
Yann
26
Influential (I)
Clara
44
Yann
37
Steady (S)
Clara
45
Yann
49
Conscientious (C)
Clara
45
Yann
42
D = Dominant
I = Influential
S = Steady
C = Conscientious

Clara and Yann do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 50/100). 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.

Persecutor
Clara
24
Yann
21
Victim
Clara
39
Yann
15
Rescuer
Clara
22
Yann
19

For Clara and Yann, 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.

Clara

39
Open
Shared and known
24
Blind
Seen by the other
33
Hidden
Deliberately hidden
4
Unknown
Unconscious

Yann

41
Open
Shared and known
24
Blind
Seen by the other
26
Hidden
Deliberately hidden
9
Unknown
Unconscious

For Clara as for Yann, enlarging the "open" area — saying what one feels, asking for feedback — mechanically reduces the misunderstandings of the blind and hidden areas.

FIRO by Schutz

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.

Clara

Inclusion
Expressed
62
Desired
61
Control
Expressed
18
Desired
40
Affection
Expressed
32
Desired
57

Yann

Inclusion
Expressed
38
Desired
49
Control
Expressed
34
Desired
35
Affection
Expressed
35
Desired
44

For Clara and Yann, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Clara 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.

Ventral (connection)
Clara
28
Yann
36
Sympathetic (fight/flight)
Clara
37
Yann
28
Dorsal (freeze)
Clara
35
Yann
36

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 behaviours.

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.

51
Abandonment / instability
Clara
36
Approval-seeking
Clara
35
Defectiveness / shame
Clara
SchemaClaraYann
Disconnection & Rejection
Abandonment / instability5125
Mistrust / abuse1813
Emotional deprivation3422
Defectiveness / shame3521
Impaired Autonomy
Impaired Limits
Insufficient self-control136
Other-Directedness
Subjugation329
Approval-seeking3619
Overvigilance
Emotional inhibition1514
0-25 (low)
26-50 (moderate)
51-75 (active)
76-100 (dominant)

Personalised 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.

1

Understand the cycle

Weeks 1-2
Consult a professional
As soon as possible

An outside perspective helps to name the pattern (pursue-withdraw, unspoken issues) without self-judgment.

Spot the trigger
Daily

Identify the precise moment when the conversation "tips over" — that is where change is played out.

2

Rebalance

Weeks 3-4
Slow down the pursuit
Daily

Clara and Yann: leave room for the other's initiative rather than reaching out into the void.

Frame it in "I"
At each tension

Replace the reproach ("you never…") with the need ("I need…").

3

Rebuild trust

Weeks 5-6
Dated actions
Weekly

Favor concrete, verifiable commitments over general promises.

4

Consolidate or decide

Weeks 7-8
Take stock
Monthly

After two months, assess honestly: has the dynamic shifted, or is it repeating identically?

Strengths

  • Yann takes ownership of the responsibility without dodging
  • An explicit commitment to rebuild
  • The dialogue is not broken

Points to watch

  • !Clara's hypervigilance (catastrophizing 55) is wearing down the bond
  • !The conflict replays the betrayal on a loop
  • !Contempt (33) rises when the repair stalls

What the report answers

What red flags does the report detect?

Catastrophizing at 55: every ambiguous signal is read as a relapse. That is normal after a betrayal -- but as long as this filter dominates, trust cannot be rebuilt.

What do the score and communication dynamic say?

Ratio at 3.4 and defensiveness at 58: the rebuilding is underway but fragile. The point to watch: the contempt (33) that rises when the repair stalls -- it is contempt, not anger, that makes forgiveness fail.

Can trust come back? The report measures it -> Analyze our conversation

Analyse our conversation · 2 min

Free dashboard · Full report from €1.99

Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.

Share this article:

Related situations

Join our exchange group

A caring, application-based space for exchange on WhatsApp — not therapy.

Join the Community (waiting list)
After infidelity: can trust come back? - ScanMyLove