Example data: a made-up chat

Sample Analysis Report

This is a paid report, module for module, with the same components the real one uses. The conversation, the people and every figure on this page are invented. Your own report shows the real names from your chat: the AI reads the chat text with names replaced by labels.

Risk content

A message that reads as a threat

Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:32, M000026): “IF YOU KEEP THIS UP YOU'LL REGRET IT”

What this does not establish: The report cannot assess actual danger, or what was meant. Nothing said off the chat is in the export.

An allegation of location tracking

Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:22, M000024): “stop checking my location on [CHILD_1]'s tablet”

What this does not establish: This is one participant's allegation, which the other disputes. The chat does not record whether any tracking happened.

What the messages show

Over sixteen days of messages about handovers, school-trip money and a child's tablet, the chat records one cancelled handover that was later denied, a message that reads as a threat, and three apologies from Participant B. Most findings rest on one or two messages, so most are incidents, not patterns.

Key findings

These are the findings with the most support in the messages, in report order. They are not ranked by importance or seriousness. Each links to its full finding with quotes, counter-evidence and other explanations.

Findings that rest on messages shown under Risk content are not repeated here.

F-003 · Participant B: B's later statement that B did not say B was not coming on Friday, and that A changed the plan, is inconsistent with B's earlier message cancelling the Friday handover and B's later proposal of Saturday. (moderate confidence)
F-007 · Participant B: B committed to transfer the trip money 'tomorrow'; B wrote 'Doing it now' the day after that, sent an omitted media item, and A acknowledged. This was within A's requested Wednesday deadline. (moderate confidence)
F-011 · Participant B: B sent apology-type messages on three occasions in three sessions: after a delayed payment, the day after the first dispute, and the day after the second. Each was followed by A proceeding with the arrangement; no explicit acceptance or rejection of the apology wording is recorded. (moderate confidence)
F-018 · Participant A: No emotions stated by A about A. Textual cues: follow-up prompts ('Hello?', '?') and emphasis ('literally'). A described the child's feeling (M000012), which is a statement about a third party. No acoustic observations: no voice notes supplied. (high confidence)
F-019 · Participant B: B's later message denies saying B was not coming on Friday and states A changed the plan. The chat records B's cancellation message (M000011) and B's proposal of Saturday (M000016). (moderate confidence)

What was analysed

32 messages from 1 Mar 2024, 08:01 to 16 Mar 2024, 04:04.

Not in the export: Other chats, groups and platforms.
Not in the export: Phone and video calls (content).
Not in the export: In-person contact.
Not in the export: Messages outside the exported period.
Not in the export: Deleted or disappearing content.

Read these before the findings

Timestamps have one-minute resolution.
1 media item(s) omitted in export; 0 referenced but not supplied.
1 message(s) were deleted; their content is not in the export.
Fewer than 30 events behind some figures for: Participant A, Participant B.

Sequence of events

1 Mar 2024, 08:01: Participant A: Asks whether handover at 5 on Friday is still ok
1 Mar 2024, 08:46: Participant B: Agrees 5 is fine; will bring school bag and inhaler (M000003)
1 Mar 2024, 13:48: Participant A: Asks for £120 school-trip money by Wednesday
1 Mar 2024, 23:48: Participant B: Says will transfer it tomorrow
3 Mar 2024, 00:48: Participant A: Asks whether money was sent; follows up 'Hello?' (M000007)
3 Mar 2024, 07:48: Participant B: Apologises, cites work; 'Doing it now'
3 Mar 2024, 07:53: Participant B: Media item sent (omitted in export)
3 Mar 2024, 07:56: Participant A: Acknowledges 'Got it, thanks'
4 Mar 2024, 17:16: Participant B: States not coming to Friday handover
4 Mar 2024, 17:46: Participant A: States it is the third time this month
4 Mar 2024, 17:56: Participant B: 'Don't start'
5 Mar 2024, 18:21: Participant B: Apologises; proposes Saturday
5 Mar 2024, 19:51: Participant A: Agrees Saturday at 10
6 Mar 2024, 17:31: Participant A: Asks where B is, 'It's 10:20' (recorded time 17:31 Wed)
6 Mar 2024, 17:51: Participant B: '5 mins'
8 Mar 2024, 16:31: Participant A: Asks why B told the child A stopped B coming
8 Mar 2024, 17:11: Participant B: Denies saying not coming Friday; says A changed the plan
8 Mar 2024, 17:22: Participant B: Tells A to stop checking location on child's tablet
8 Mar 2024, 17:26: Participant A: States has not checked; tablet shares location with both
8 Mar 2024, 17:32: Participant B: All-capitals message: 'you'll regret it'
8 Mar 2024, 19:32: Participant A: Boundary: asks B not to message like that
9 Mar 2024, 20:32: Participant B: 'Ok. Sorry.'; asks for next weekend
9 Mar 2024, 21:32: Participant A: Agrees pick-up Saturday 10am
9 Mar 2024, 22:02: Participant B: 'I'll be there'
16 Mar 2024, 04:02: Participant B: Message deleted (system-recorded)
16 Mar 2024, 04:04: Participant A: Replies '?'

Claim consistency

Statements set against what the chat itself records, earlier and later.

F-003 · Participant B · contradiction

B's later statement that B did not say B was not coming on Friday, and that A changed the plan, is inconsistent with B's earlier message cancelling the Friday handover and B's later proposal of Saturday.

Incident. Reading: contradicted. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (4 Mar 2024, 17:16, M000011): “I'm not coming to the handover on Friday, something came up”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:11, M000022): “I never said I wasn't coming on Friday”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:11, M000022): “You changed the plan”

Supporting: Earlier cancellation by B. (M000011)
Supporting: B proposed Saturday; A agreed. (M000016, M000017)
Counter: More than one Friday is in play (1 and 8 March); M000022 answers a question about what the child was told off-chat, so B may refer to a different conversation or Friday. (M000001, M000021)
Other explanation considered: Refers to a different Friday or occasion: plausible. M000001 was sent on Friday 1 March about 'Friday'.
Other explanation considered: Disputes how the change was characterised to the child, not the message itself: plausible. M000021 concerns an off-chat conversation.
Other explanation considered: Ordinary memory error: plausible. Four days between messages.
Other explanation considered: Sarcasm: ruled out. No indication in the surrounding messages.

What would change it: What was said to the child off-chat; any calls between 4 and 8 March; which Friday each message refers to.

F-004 · Participant A · claim assessed against material

A's statement that this was 'the third time this month' is not shown by the supplied chat, which records one cancellation in March (M000011) before that message.

Incident. Reading: not supported by these messages. Confidence: moderate.

Participant A (4 Mar 2024, 17:46, M000012): “That's the third time this month”

Supporting: One cancellation recorded in the chat for 1-4 March. (M000011)
Counter: Earlier cancellations could have occurred by call, in person or on another app.
Other explanation considered: Cancellations happened off-chat: plausible. The chat is not the only channel.
Other explanation considered: 'This month' meant a rolling month or included February: plausible. The export starts on 1 March.
Other explanation considered: Hyperbole in a moment of frustration: plausible. Sent immediately after a cancellation.

What would change it: February messages, call logs, or other records of handover cancellations.

F-005 · Participant B · claim assessed against material

B's statement that A is checking B's location on the child's tablet is not recorded or tested anywhere in the chat.

Incident. Reading: not enough evidence. Confidence: low.

Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:22, M000024): “stop checking my location”

Counter: A disputes it. (M000025)
Other explanation considered: Based on information outside the chat (device, child): plausible. Not supplied.
Other explanation considered: Misunderstanding of a shared location feature: plausible. See M000025.

What would change it: Tablet location-sharing settings and history.

F-006 · Participant A · claim assessed against material

A's statement that A has not checked anything and that the tablet shares location with both parents is not recorded or tested anywhere in the chat.

Incident. Reading: not enough evidence. Confidence: low.

Participant A (8 Mar 2024, 17:26, M000025): “I haven't checked anything. The tablet shares location with both of us”

Counter: B asserts the opposite. (M000024)
Other explanation considered: Accurate description of a shared feature: plausible. Not testable from the chat.
Other explanation considered: A viewed shared location without regarding it as 'checking': plausible. Wording dispute possible.

What would change it: Tablet location-sharing settings and access history.

Commitments and follow-through

Promises and arrangements, and what the chat records of them afterwards.

F-007 · Participant B · fulfilment evidenced in chat

B committed to transfer the trip money 'tomorrow'; B wrote 'Doing it now' the day after that, sent an omitted media item, and A acknowledged. This was within A's requested Wednesday deadline.

Incident. Reading: supported. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (1 Mar 2024, 23:48, M000005): “I'll transfer it tomorrow”
Participant B (3 Mar 2024, 07:48, M000008): “Doing it now”
Participant A (3 Mar 2024, 07:56, M000010): “Got it, thanks”

Supporting: A acknowledged 'Got it, thanks'. (M000010)
Counter: A asked about it after the stated day had passed. (M000006, M000007)
Counter: Media omitted in export; its content is unknown. (M000009)
Other explanation considered: 'Tomorrow' at 23:48 meant the day after midnight: plausible. M000005 was sent 12 minutes before midnight.
Other explanation considered: Work pressure delayed it, as B stated: plausible. Stated at M000008; cannot be tested.

What would change it: Bank transfer record; the omitted media item.

F-008 · Participant B · revised

B agreed to a Friday 5pm handover and to bring items; B later withdrew from the Friday handover giving the reason 'something came up', and the next day proposed Saturday instead, which A accepted.

Incident. Reading: supported. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (1 Mar 2024, 08:46, M000002): “Yes 5 is fine”
Participant B (1 Mar 2024, 08:48, M000003): “I'll bring [CHILD_1]'s school bag”
Participant B (4 Mar 2024, 17:16, M000011): “I'm not coming to the handover on Friday, something came up”

Supporting: Withdrawal with stated reason. (M000011)
Supporting: Replacement arrangement agreed. (M000016, M000017)
Counter: Unclear whether 'Friday' in M000001 meant 1 or 8 March; the 1 March handover may have taken place off-chat. (M000001)
Other explanation considered: Circumstances outside B's control: plausible. Reason not specified.
Other explanation considered: Renegotiated off-chat: plausible. Not recorded.

What would change it: What 'something came up' referred to; whether the 1 March handover happened.

F-009 · Participant B · no evidence in chat / unresolved

Later arrangements by B ('5 mins' while A was waiting; 'I'll be there' for a Saturday 10am pick-up) have no in-chat record of outcome. The export ends on the morning of the pick-up day after a deleted message from B.

Incident. Reading: not enough evidence. Confidence: low.

Participant B (6 Mar 2024, 17:51, M000020): “5 mins”
Participant B (9 Mar 2024, 22:02, M000030): “I'll be there”

Counter: Deleted message; content unknown. (M000031)
Other explanation considered: Fulfilled off-chat (in person): plausible. Handovers happen in person.
Other explanation considered: Export ends before the outcome: plausible. Last record is 16 March 04:04.

What would change it: Messages after 16 March; any other record of the handovers.

F-010 · Participant A · no departure recorded / limited material

A committed to talk only about the child from then on; A's later messages in the export concern a pick-up arrangement and a single '?'. A also accepted two replacement arrangements; no in-chat record of their outcome.

Incident. Reading: not enough evidence. Confidence: low.

Participant A (8 Mar 2024, 19:32, M000027): “I'll only talk about [CHILD_1] from now on”
Participant A (9 Mar 2024, 21:32, M000029): “Yes. Pick up Saturday 10am”
Participant A (5 Mar 2024, 19:51, M000017): “Ok Saturday at 10”

Supporting: Next A message is about child arrangements. (M000029)
Counter: '?' reply to a deleted message; topic unclear. (M000032)
Other explanation considered: Too little later material to assess: plausible. Only two A messages follow.
Other explanation considered: Off-chat contact on other topics: plausible. Not supplied.

What would change it: Messages after 16 March and other channels.

Conversation dynamics

How disagreements start and end, repair attempts, and boundary statements.

F-011 · Participant B · repair attempts

B sent apology-type messages on three occasions in three sessions: after a delayed payment, the day after the first dispute, and the day after the second. Each was followed by A proceeding with the arrangement; no explicit acceptance or rejection of the apology wording is recorded.

Pattern. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (3 Mar 2024, 07:48, M000008): “Sorry, work was mad.”
Participant B (5 Mar 2024, 18:21, M000016): “Sorry about yesterday.”
Participant B (9 Mar 2024, 20:32, M000028): “Ok. Sorry.”

Supporting: Each follows a coded conflict episode (sessions 6 and 10). (M000016, M000028)
Counter: Follows a delay, not a conflict; with it excluded, 2 instances (below threshold). (M000008)
Other explanation considered: Repairs accepted without words or by call: plausible. A proceeded each time.
Other explanation considered: Norms about apologising differ: plausible.

What would change it: Calls or in-person conversations after each episode; whether M000008 is treated as linked.

F-012 · Participant A · repair responses / repair attempts

No repair attempts by A coded. A responded to each of B's apology-type messages by agreeing an arrangement (M000017, M000029). M000014 was considered and coded as a clarification, not a repair.

Incident. Confidence: low.

Participant A (4 Mar 2024, 18:01, M000014): “I'm not starting anything”
Participant A (5 Mar 2024, 19:51, M000017): “Ok Saturday at 10”

Supporting: Arrangements agreed after B's apologies. (M000017, M000029)
Counter: Could be read as an attempt to de-escalate. (M000014)
Other explanation considered: Repair happened off-chat: plausible. Not supplied.
Other explanation considered: Agreeing the arrangement functioned as acceptance: plausible.

What would change it: Calls or other messages after 4 and 8 March.

F-013 · Participant B · boundary statements

B made two boundary statements in two sessions ('Don't start.'; asking A to stop checking location). A disputed the premise of each in the next message.

Incident. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (4 Mar 2024, 17:56, M000013): “Don't start.”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:22, M000024): “stop checking my location”

Supporting: A's next responses dispute the premise (negotiated). (M000014, M000025)
Other explanation considered: Response continued off-chat: plausible.
Other explanation considered: Statements were argumentative moves rather than limits: plausible. Both sent mid-dispute.

What would change it: Off-chat discussion of these requests.

F-014 · Participant A · boundary statements

A made one boundary statement after B's capitals message. B's next message acknowledged it ('Ok. Sorry.'); no message of the same kind from B appears in the remaining supplied material.

Incident. Confidence: moderate.

Participant A (8 Mar 2024, 19:32, M000027): “Please don't message me like that.”
Participant B (9 Mar 2024, 20:32, M000028): “Ok. Sorry.”

Supporting: Acknowledged. (M000028)
Counter: One later B message was deleted; content unknown. (M000031)
Other explanation considered: Little later material to show recurrence or not: plausible. Only 4 messages follow.

What would change it: Messages after 16 March; the deleted message.

F-015 · Participant A · conflict cycles

A's messages were the first coded accusatory content in both conflict episodes (sessions 6 and 10). Each followed a B cancellation or an off-chat conversation A reports.

Incident. Confidence: moderate.

Participant A (4 Mar 2024, 17:46, M000012): “That's the third time this month.”
Participant A (8 Mar 2024, 16:31, M000021): “Why did you tell [CHILD_1] I stopped you coming on Friday?”

Supporting: Episode 1 followed B's cancellation. (M000011)
Counter: Framed as a question; trigger was off-chat. (M000021)
Other explanation considered: Responding to a trigger (cancellation; what the child was told): plausible. Both follow a reported event.

What would change it: What happened off-chat before 8 March.

F-016 · Participant B · conflict cycles

In both conflict episodes B's replies included dismissive or escalating content; the second episode ended with B's capitals message. B sent an apology-type message the next day after each episode.

Incident. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (4 Mar 2024, 19:01, M000015): “Tell her whatever you want”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:22, M000024): “Whatever.”

Supporting: Subsequent apologies. (M000016, M000028)
Other explanation considered: Stress (stated at M000016): plausible.
Other explanation considered: Replying to accusatory messages: plausible. Both episodes opened with A's accusatory messages.

What would change it: Off-chat context of the two episodes.

Emotional expression

Emotions people state about themselves, and textual cues such as capitals. No voice notes were supplied.

F-017 · Participant B · stated and textual cues

One stated emotion ('I was stressed'). Textual cues: one all-capitals message; 'Whatever.'. No acoustic observations: no voice notes were supplied.

Incident. Confidence: high.

Participant B (5 Mar 2024, 18:21, M000016): “I was stressed.”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:32, M000026): “IF YOU KEEP THIS UP YOU'LL REGRET IT”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:22, M000024): “Whatever.”

Other explanation considered: Capitals as emphasis or typing habit: plausible. Only one all-caps message among 14 text messages from B.

What would change it: Voice notes or calls, if supplied.

F-018 · Participant A · stated and textual cues

No emotions stated by A about A. Textual cues: follow-up prompts ('Hello?', '?') and emphasis ('literally'). A described the child's feeling (M000012), which is a statement about a third party. No acoustic observations: no voice notes supplied.

Incident. Confidence: high.

Participant A (3 Mar 2024, 01:08, M000007): “Hello?”
Participant A (8 Mar 2024, 17:19, M000023): “You literally messaged me”
Participant A (16 Mar 2024, 04:04, M000032): “?”

Other explanation considered: Prompts reflect logistics or waiting for a reply: plausible. M000007 follows an unanswered money question.

What would change it: Voice notes or calls, if supplied.

Denial of documented events

Where a later message disputes something the chat records. The report sets out the sequence; the reading of it is yours.

F-019 · Participant B · flat denial and reversal

B's later message denies saying B was not coming on Friday and states A changed the plan. The chat records B's cancellation message (M000011) and B's proposal of Saturday (M000016).

Incident. Reading: contradicted. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (4 Mar 2024, 17:16, M000011): “I'm not coming to the handover on Friday”
Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:11, M000022): “I never said I wasn't coming on Friday”

Supporting: A points to the earlier message. (M000023)
Counter: Possible different Friday or dispute about what the child was told. (M000001, M000021)
Other explanation considered: Disputes the interpretation or what the child was told: plausible.
Other explanation considered: Refers to a different occasion: plausible.
Other explanation considered: Misremembering of wording: plausible.

What would change it: What was said to the child; calls between 4 and 8 March.

Monitoring, restriction and intimidation

Check-ins, demands and threats, each against what else the chat records.

F-020 · Participant A · check-in demands

A asked about the status of a payment with a follow-up prompt, and later asked where B was while waiting at a handover. Two incidents in two sessions, on different topics; not treated as a pattern.

Incident. Confidence: low.

Participant A (3 Mar 2024, 00:48, M000006): “Did you send the trip money?”
Participant A (6 Mar 2024, 17:31, M000018): “Where are you?”

Counter: Both concern agreed child-related arrangements (trip money; handover time). (M000004, M000017)
Counter: B's location allegation is a claim, not an in-chat instance; not coded here. (M000024, M000025)
Other explanation considered: Logistics about shared child and money: plausible. Both tied to agreed arrangements.
Other explanation considered: Request made once and dropped: plausible. No repetition on either topic.

What would change it: Wider message history showing frequency of such questions.

F-021 · Participant B · threat (cross-reference to Risk content)

One threat-type message (see Risk content, F-001). A responded with a boundary statement; B acknowledged the next day. One instance, one session.

Incident. Confidence: moderate.

Participant B (8 Mar 2024, 17:32, M000026): “IF YOU KEEP THIS UP YOU'LL REGRET IT”

Supporting: A's response. (M000027)
Counter: Acknowledgement and apology. (M000028)
Other explanation considered: Hyperbole in an argument: plausible.

What would change it: Other channels and later messages.