What does a report say about a relationship that never moves forward?
We're together without being together, and it's going nowhere
A comfortable relationship that never gets defined.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Emma moves closer when Noe pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: minimizing one's own needs.
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 57%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Emma
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Noe
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Emma
Most used words by Noe
Favourite emojis of Emma
Favourite emojis of Noe
The relationship analysis
A comfortable relationship that never gets defined. The report highlights the asymmetry in projected investment: Emma is looking for a direction, Noe keeps things vague. Neither a breakup nor a commitment, a status quo that mostly suits one of them.
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 doesn't matter if it's not defined, as long as we're good together”
“If I bring it up, he'll leave”
Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic
Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws
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.
The combination of intimacy 55, passion 39 and commitment 37 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.
Gap: Emma and Noe 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.
Relationship prognosis
Guarded
Positive factors
- + Genuine closeness and affection
- + No toxicity: the bond is healthy, just undefined
Risk factors
- - Commitment (37) remains deliberately vague on Noe's side
- - Emma minimizes her own needs (52) to preserve the status quo
- - What goes unsaid keeps things from evolving
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
« When you let me know you'll be home late, I worry less — thank you. »
Observation + positive impact: reinforces the desired behavior without demanding.
« 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.
Emma and Noe do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 44/100). 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 Emma and Noe, 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.
Emma
Noe
For Emma as for Noe, 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.
Emma
Noe
For Emma and Noe, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Emma 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 | Emma | Noe |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 37 | 23 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 10 | 19 |
| Emotional deprivation | 28 | 29 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 26 | 9 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 10 | 6 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 34 | 17 |
| Approval-seeking | 23 | 15 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 17 | 31 |
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
DailyEmma and Noe: 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
- ✓Genuine closeness and affection
- ✓No toxicity: the bond is healthy, just undefined
Points to watch
- !Commitment (37) remains deliberately vague on Noe's side
- !Emma minimizes her own needs (52) to preserve the status quo
- !What goes unsaid keeps things from evolving
What the report answers
What does the attachment style reveal in this case?
Noe is avoidant (60): the vagueness is no accident, it's a comfort zone that sidesteps commitment. Emma, more anxious (57), adjusts to it by silencing her expectations.
What red flags does the report detect?
Minimizing one's own needs at 52: "it doesn't matter if it's not defined." This is the mechanism that keeps a situationship going, until the suppressed need overflows.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
The contrast speaks for itself: Affection at 58, Commitment at 37. There's real fondness... yet nothing moves forward. The report makes visible what the vagueness masks: an asymmetry of intent.
Situationship or a real beginning? See where it's heading, Analyze your messages
Analyse our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from €1.99
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.