What does a report reveal when a toxic ex tries to suck you back in?
My toxic ex is back with beautiful promises
After a painful breakup, Bruno comes back — changed, he says.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Sofia moves closer when Bruno pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: targeted nostalgia (idealization).
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 63%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Sofia
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Bruno
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Sofia
Most used words by Bruno
Favourite emojis of Sofia
Favourite emojis of Bruno
The relationship analysis
After a painful breakup, Bruno comes back — changed, he says. The report reads the markers of hoovering in his return messages: spectacular promises, targeted nostalgia, gentle guilt-tripping. These are not the words of genuine self-questioning, but of a maneuver to pry the door back open.
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.
“Remember how good we were together, no one will ever understand you the way I do”
“I’m falling apart without you, you can’t just abandon me”
“This time I’ve really changed, everything will be different”
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 42, passion 45 and commitment 44 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: Sofia and Bruno 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.
Clear cooling of affection: signs of tenderness become scarce on one side.
The hot-cold cycle spins out: devaluation then winning back, without the underlying issue ever changing.
Relationship prognosis
Fragile
A low score does not mean your situation is hopeless. It reflects current dynamics, which can evolve — particularly with appropriate professional support. Every relationship goes through difficult phases, and recognising these difficulties is already an important step.
Positive factors
- + Sofia keeps a clear-eyed doubt — the signal that can protect her
Risk factors
- - Targeted nostalgia (66) + guilt-tripping (60) + promises (57) = the hoovering triad
- - No acknowledgment of past wrongs (Conflict 28)
- - Contempt (55) and a 2.1 ratio: the toxic core hasn’t changed, only the tone of the comeback has
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.
Sofia and Bruno do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 33/100). 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.
Role shifts
Between Sofia and Bruno, the roles are not fixed: they rotate (Victim → Rescuer → Persecutor). Bruno often slides toward the self-sacrificing rescuer. Stepping out of the triangle means returning to an adult-to-adult exchange, without roles.
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.
Sofia
Bruno
For Sofia as for Bruno, 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.
Sofia
Bruno
For Sofia and Bruno, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Bruno 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 | Sofia | Bruno |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 43 | 32 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 32 | 43 |
| Emotional deprivation | 32 | 30 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 26 | 25 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 32 | 29 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 2 | 29 |
| Approval-seeking | 28 | 20 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 13 | 32 |
Violence Cycle (Walker)
Identification of cyclical phases in the relational dynamic.
Rising reproaches and irritability; Sofia is "walking on eggshells."
Crisis: devaluation, hurtful words, reversal of responsibility.
Apologies, minimization ("I wasn't myself"), promises to change.
Return of intense affection — until the next rise in tension.
The cycle repeats on an ever-shorter rhythm. Recognizing the "honeymoon" phase as part of the cycle (and not as real change) is often the turning point that protects.
Power and Control Wheel (Duluth)
Control mechanisms detected in the relational dynamic.
The wheel makes the underlying mechanics of control visible: these are not isolated outbursts but levers that reinforce one another. Talking about it to a trusted third party breaks the first link (isolation).
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.
Get to safety
Immediate priorityConsult a professional
As soon as possibleAs a priority, a professional trained in coercive control and control dynamics. 3919 (domestic violence), 3114 in case of distress.
Document the facts
As it happensRecord dates and words to counter the rewriting of reality and keep a reliable reference point.
Rebalance
Weeks 3-4Slow down the pursuit
DailySofia and Bruno: 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
- ✓Sofia keeps a clear-eyed doubt — the signal that can protect her
Points to watch
- !Targeted nostalgia (66) + guilt-tripping (60) + promises (57) = the hoovering triad
- !No acknowledgment of past wrongs (Conflict 28)
- !Contempt (55) and a 2.1 ratio: the toxic core hasn’t changed, only the tone of the comeback has
What the report answers
What does the attachment style reveal in this case?
Sofia is anxious (64) with a disorganized (30) tint: this is precisely the profile hoovering targets — the doubt and the need to repair make the door easy to reopen.
What red flags does the report detect?
Here is the signature of hoovering, distinct from an emprise that is still “ongoing”: it’s the return messages that speak — targeted nostalgia (66), guilt-tripping (“I’m falling apart without you”, 60), spectacular promises (57). The report reads a maneuver, not a change of heart.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
The tone of the comeback is gentle, but the core hasn’t budged: contempt at 55, ratio at 2.1. Hoovering reignites the affection (the “warm”) without addressing the toxicity — that’s what makes it dangerous.
Genuine change of heart or hoovering? Decode it → Analyze their messages
Analyse our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from €1.99
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.