Reframing · Pattern 4 of 7
Fact / Event vs Interpretation
Split the sentence into the observable part and the meaning the client supplied.
Recover: The seam between what happened and what it was made to mean
What it is
TRAINER METHOD. The move that makes both reframes possible. Until the seam is visible you cannot tell which half you are changing, and a great many failed reframes are simply arguments about the fact.
Recognition / tip-offs
What has been distorted, generalised or deleted
- The interpretation is part of the event
- Anyone present would have seen it
Client-language use
“She ignored me” already contains a verdict. “She walked past without speaking” is the event.
How to challenge it
Restate the observable, then ask what it was made to mean. Do not dispute either half.
- “What did she actually do?”
- “What part of that would a camera have recorded?”
- “And what did you make that mean?”
Practitioner judgement: challenge what is useful, not every pattern you can hear.
What to recover
Do this silently in your head on every client statement. It is the practitioner's default listening posture.
Client autonomy first — offer language the client can verify and decline.
Examples
““He dismissed my idea.” → Event: he said “let's stick with the current plan”. Meaning: my idea was dismissed.”
Missing The verdict was in the event.
Common confusion and overlap
- Arguing with the client about what happened
- Splitting the sentence out loud in a way that sounds like cross-examination
Practice this pattern
Hear it
0%
Unpack it
0%
Question it
0%
Build it
0%
Use it live
0%