What does a report reveal when someone vanishes overnight?
He stops replying, from one day to the next
A lively conversation that goes dark all at once.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Éva moves closer when Tom pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: personalization.
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 72%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Éva
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Tom
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Éva
Most used words by Tom
Favourite emojis of Éva
Favourite emojis of Tom
The relationship analysis
A lively conversation that goes dark all at once. The report reads, in the final exchanges, the micro-signals that preceded the disappearance: a gradual withdrawal on Tom's side, an escalation of follow-up messages on Éva's. Ghosting is rarely sudden — it builds up.
What the messages reveal
Reconstructed excerpts — the report reads each exchange and highlights the underlying pattern.
Relational dimensions
Attachment profile
Gottman’s 4 Horsemen
The lower the score, the better. Above 50 = warning signal.
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.
“It's my fault, I must have said something wrong”
“No one will ever stay”
Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic
Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws
Balance: Strong 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.
The combination of intimacy 43, passion 40 and commitment 34 outlines a "loosened bond" profile. The imbalance between the pillars weakens the whole — one side carries the relationship while the others give way.
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.
Gap: Éva and Tom 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.
First marked tension: reproaches replace the request, the exchange grows tense.
Tom withdraws: short replies then silences, Éva keeps reaching out alone.
The conflict replays the same script without resolution — wear and tear sets in.
Relationship prognosis
Guarded
Positive factors
- + Éva kept a respectful tone even in her distress
- + No aggression on her part
Risk factors
- - Tom's withdrawal (stonewalling 74) is complete and offers no closure
- - Personalization (58) makes Éva carry a responsibility that isn't hers
- - Extreme imbalance at the end (Balance 30)
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.
Examples
« You never think about how I feel. »
Generalization ("never") and judgment: the real need (to be taken into account) stays hidden behind the reproach.
« I feel alone when I go a whole day without hearing from you. »
Fact + emotion + need, without accusation: the wording opens dialogue instead of closing it.
Requests come mainly through reproach: the need is real but framed in a way that triggers the other's defensiveness rather than their cooperation.
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.
Éva and Tom do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 34/100). 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.
For Éva and Tom, 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.
Éva
Tom
For Éva as for Tom, enlarging the "open" area — saying what one feels, asking for feedback — mechanically reduces the misunderstandings of the blind and hidden areas, which are numerous in this case.
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.
Éva
Tom
For Éva and Tom, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Éva 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.
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.
| Schema | Éva | Tom |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 49 | 24 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 17 | 30 |
| Emotional deprivation | 31 | 27 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 34 | 11 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 9 | 16 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 38 | 14 |
| Approval-seeking | 36 | 10 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 14 | 44 |
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.
Understand the cycle
Weeks 1-2Consult a professional
As soon as possibleAn outside perspective helps to name the pattern (pursue-withdraw, unspoken issues) without self-judgment.
Spot the trigger
DailyIdentify the precise moment when the conversation "tips over" — that is where change is played out.
Rebalance
Weeks 3-4Slow down the pursuit
DailyÉva and Tom: leave room for the other's initiative rather than reaching out into the void.
Frame it in "I"
At each tensionReplace the reproach ("you never…") with the need ("I need…").
Rebuild trust
Weeks 5-6Dated actions
WeeklyFavor concrete, verifiable commitments over general promises.
Consolidate or decide
Weeks 7-8Take stock
MonthlyAfter two months, assess honestly: has the dynamic shifted, or is it repeating identically?
Strengths
- ✓Éva kept a respectful tone even in her distress
- ✓No aggression on her part
Points to watch
- !Tom's withdrawal (stonewalling 74) is complete and offers no closure
- !Personalization (58) makes Éva carry a responsibility that isn't hers
- !Extreme imbalance at the end (Balance 30)
What the report answers
What does the attachment style reveal in this case?
Tom peaks as avoidant (71): here, going silent is the extreme form of avoidance — fleeing rather than facing closure. That says a lot about him, not about Éva's worth.
What red flags does the report detect?
Personalization at 58: Éva blames herself ("I must have said something"). The report lifts that guilt — the ghosting is the other person's choice, not a deserved punishment.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
The drop-off is measurable: Communication at 34, Commitment at 33. The ghosting wasn't sudden — the scores show Tom's disinvestment settling in before the cut-off.
Ghosting or just a pause? Understand what happened -> Analyze our messages
Analyse our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from €1.99
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.