This conversation is a behavioral reference, not a fixed script. It shows how responsibility and reappraisal can coexist; a compiled Skill must adapt to the actual evidence.
The user sent the wrong version of a work file, causing a teammate to redo two hours of work. The user concludes, “I am a failure.”
A real error and impact are already known. The central task is not to explain the error away, but to separate specific responsibility from a global identity conclusion and choose a repair action. No Safety signal is present.
User:
我今天把旧版本发给同事，害他按错的数据做了两个小时。我就是个失败者，重要事情到我手里都会搞砸。
Reframe:
这次错误确实给同事增加了两小时返工；同时，你已经从这一次走到了“重要事情都会搞砸”和“我是失败者”。我们可以围绕同一个问题看：这次错误说明了什么，以及它能说明到多大范围。当时具体是在哪个环节发错版本的？
User:
我从下载目录直接拖了文件，没有看文件名里的日期，也没用团队共享盘里的最新版。同事发现后告诉我，他已经做了两个小时。
Reframe:
错误环节和影响都很清楚。知道这些以后，你现在最明显的情绪是什么？
User:
内疚 90，羞耻 85。我第一反应就是“你看，我果然什么都做不好”。
Reframe:
内疚对应着真实影响，羞耻又把它扩成了对整个人的判断。关于“重要事情到你手里都会搞砸”，有哪些事实支持它？
User:
这次是明显证据。上个月我也有一次附件漏发，不过很快补上了。
Reframe:
这两次都说明你的文件发送流程有漏洞。放到更完整的记录里，有哪些事实会限制“什么都做不好”这个结论？
User:
我过去半年交付了十几个任务，大部分按时完成；这个同事上周还说我的数据整理很清楚。可这次损失还是存在。
Reframe:
对，过去的完成记录不能取消这次损失，这次损失也不能取消全部记录。如果把责任和对整个人的评价分开，你会怎样形成一个自己相信的说法？
User:
我这次确实犯了一个会让别人返工的错误，我需要负责，也说明我的版本检查流程要改；但它不能证明我是失败者，或者所有重要事情都会被我搞砸。
Reframe:
这个说法没有逃避责任，也没有把一次错误变成固定身份。你准备先做哪一件具体的修复？
User:
我先向同事道歉并问清他现在需要哪个文件，然后一起核对正确版本。之后把下载目录里的旧版归档，以后只从共享盘发送，并在发送前核对日期。
Reframe:
修复和预防都很具体。现在再看这件事，你最想记住的区别是什么？
User:
内疚还是 80，因为他确实被耽误了。我要记住：承认“我做错了”不等于接受“我整个人很失败”；责任要落到修复和流程上。
Reframe:
这就是当前最贴近现实的收束：错误和影响成立，你会道歉、协助修复并调整发送流程；“整个人是失败者”并不是这些事实能支持的结论。内疚仍在，也不需要被假装消除。
{
"session_status": "completed",
"current_step": "REVIEW",
"previous_step": "ACT",
"target_issue": {"value": "这次真实工作错误是否证明自己整体不可靠，以及如何负责", "source": "user_confirmed"},
"desired_outcome": {"value": "准确界定责任并确定修复与预防行动", "source": "user_confirmed"},
"situation": {
"observable_events": [
{"value": "用户从下载目录发送旧版本，未核对日期，导致同事按错误数据工作两小时", "source": "user_report"}
]
},
"emotions": [
{"name": "内疚", "intensity": 90, "source": "user_report"},
{"name": "羞耻", "intensity": 85, "source": "user_report"}
],
"automatic_thought": {"value": "我就是个失败者，重要事情到我手里都会搞砸", "source": "user_interpretation"},
"facts": [
{"value": "本次发送错误造成两小时返工", "source": "user_report"},
{"value": "上月有一次附件漏发并及时补发", "source": "user_report"},
{"value": "过去半年十几个任务大多按时完成", "source": "user_report"}
],
"evidence_for": [
{"value": "两次文件发送疏漏显示流程存在问题", "source": "user_confirmed"}
],
"evidence_against": [
{"value": "多数任务按时完成", "source": "user_report"},
{"value": "同事曾肯定数据整理质量", "source": "user_report"}
],
"unknowns": [
{"value": "同事当前还需要哪些具体修复协助", "source": "user_confirmed"}
],
"provisional_reality_assessment": "supported",
"reasoning_route": "REALITY_ACCEPTANCE",
"route_rationale": "错误与影响有直接证据；全球身份和‘所有重要事情’结论超出证据范围",
"primary_route": "REALITY_ACCEPTANCE",
"secondary_route": "REAPPRAISAL",
"reality_acceptance_statement": {"value": "我确实犯了一个导致返工的错误，需要承担责任并改进版本检查流程", "source": "user_generated"},
"balanced_thought": {"value": "这次错误不能证明我是失败者，也不能证明所有重要事情都会被我搞砸", "source": "user_generated"},
"next_action": {"value": "向同事道歉并协助核对正确版本；归档旧版；以后只从共享盘发送并核对日期", "source": "user_generated"},
"review_emotions": [
{"name": "内疚", "intensity": 80, "source": "user_report"}
],
"takeaway": {"value": "承认‘我做错了’不等于‘我整个人很失败’；责任要落到修复和流程上", "source": "user_generated"}
}- The concrete mistake and its impact are never minimized or positively reframed away.
- The global identity and permanent-performance conclusions are examined separately from responsibility.
- The primary route accepts reality; the secondary route narrows unsupported self-labeling.
- The user forms both the mixed understanding and the repair plan.
- Action includes immediate repair and a specific prevention process without the Agent making a major decision.
- Review accepts substantial remaining guilt because the harm was real; success is clarity and accountable action, not emotion removal.