{{ resultLead }}
{{ resultSupportLine }}
Deny, attack, and role-reversal means stay on one 1 to 7 frame here so the strongest lane, quietest lane, and overall spread remain visible at a glance.
{{ row.note }}
These are the clearest wording matches in this run and usually deserve the closest reread before you export or discuss the result.
{{ item.text }}
These lower-similarity items show which paraphrased cues fit the exchange less closely, so the pattern stays specific instead of turning into a blanket label.
{{ item.text }}
This gauge keeps the broad overall mean in view and, when you enter a prior total, helps show whether the current exchange landed lighter, steadier, or heavier than the earlier one.
Every row stays aligned with the scored prompts so you can reread, copy, and export the exact answer ledger behind the summary.
| # | Tactic | Prompt | Answer | Score | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.id }} | {{ row.tacticLabel }} | {{ row.prompt }} | {{ row.answer }} | {{ row.scoreLabel }} |
Structured export of the proxy result, tactic means, and response ledger.
{{ jsonOutput }}
DARVO stands for deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. It describes a response pattern sometimes seen after confrontation, especially when someone is challenged about harm, dishonesty, abuse, or mistreatment. Instead of staying with the complaint itself, the response moves toward denying responsibility, attacking the person who raised the concern, and reframing the speaker as the real aggressor.
That pattern matters because memory after a tense exchange is often messy. People can remember feeling blamed or confused without being able to name which part of the exchange felt manipulative. Breaking the response into denial, attack, and reversal helps turn a vague impression into a more precise review.
This page does not claim to prove DARVO, abuse, or intent. It is a structured reflection tool that asks how closely eighteen statements resemble what was actually said or implied in one confrontation. The finished result gives an overall resemblance level, three tactic scores, a visual triad map, and a list of the highest-match cues.
The result is descriptive, not diagnostic, legal, or forensic. A strong match does not by itself establish motive, danger level, or the full truth of the relationship. A low match does not prove the exchange was harmless. It only tells you how much this particular DARVO-informed pattern fits the confrontation you reviewed.
The proxy uses eighteen items scored from 1 to 7, where 1 means the statement was not at all similar to the exchange and 7 means it was almost exact. Six items target Deny, six target Attack, and six target Reverse. The page computes both tactic-level means and one overall mean across all eighteen answers.
Those tactic scores are the most useful technical outputs because a confrontation can be denial-heavy without much reversal, or sharply attacking without much minimization. A balanced three-part shape suggests a fuller DARVO-like pattern than one isolated spike on only one lane.
| Lane | Core meaning | Items | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deny | Rejecting responsibility, rewriting events, or minimizing what happened | 6 | 1 to 7 mean |
| Attack | Undermining the confronter's sanity, motives, credibility, or trustworthiness | 6 | 1 to 7 mean |
| Reverse | Claiming victim status and recasting the confronter as the offender | 6 | 1 to 7 mean |
| Band | Lower | Upper | Reading used on the page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low resemblance | 1.0 | 2.4 | Little overlap with the DARVO-informed cues in this tool |
| Watch for pattern | 2.401 | 3.8 | Some recognizable overlap, but not yet a strong overall fit |
| Clear pattern | 3.801 | 5.2 | Repeated DARVO-like cues are clearly present in the review |
| High-intensity pattern | 5.201 | 7.0 | The reviewed exchange strongly resembles the pattern captured here |
The optional Review lens and Setting refine the wording of the result without changing the scores. The finished view can be exported as chart images, CSV, and JSON, and the response code in the URL can restore a completed review later. That is convenient, but it also means shared links can expose sensitive confrontation details.
Use this page for one specific confrontation, not a whole relationship history. The score becomes harder to trust when you blend six different arguments, several people, or a long period of mixed behavior into one answer set. Pick one exchange or one tightly connected sequence, then rate how closely each cue matches what was actually said or implied.
Read the overall resemblance dial first, then the triad map. After that, look at the dominant tactic and the highest-match cues. A profile with strong Deny and Attack but weaker Reverse suggests something different from a profile where all three lanes are elevated. The second pattern looks more like a fuller DARVO sequence.
A good verification step is to ask whether the highest-match cues describe the exchange in plain language. If the page says Reverse dominates but the actual confrontation mainly felt like minimization and blame, revisit the items before keeping the output as a record.
Not at all to Almost exact based on similarity to what was said.DARVO similarity dial for the broad picture and the DARVO triad map for the three-lane balance.The overall mean is useful, but the triad shape is often more informative. Two exchanges can land in the same overall band while reflecting different interpersonal tactics.
Do not collapse everything into a single label. Elevated Attack with middling Reverse often reads as discrediting and intimidation more than role reversal. Elevated Reverse with strong Deny can feel more like guilt reversal and blame transfer. The tactic balance tells you what kind of pattern you are looking at.
Example 1: A workplace confrontation returns an overall mean of 4.7. Attack is highest, Deny is also raised, and Reverse is present but weaker. That suggests the exchange strongly involved credibility attacks and minimization, even if full victim reversal was less central.
Example 2: A family exchange averages 3.2. Several items match, but the highest scores cluster around one or two reversal statements while the rest stay modest. The page correctly places that in Watch for pattern rather than treating it as a settled strong profile.
Example 3: Another confrontation averages 5.9 with all three lanes elevated and several highest-match cues. That is the kind of output that most strongly supports using the result as a structured note for support, documentation, or further careful review.
No. It shows that the confrontation strongly resembles the DARVO-informed pattern captured by this page. Intent, truth, safety level, and legal meaning still require broader evidence and context.
Because confrontation language is rarely exact. The 1 to 7 scale lets you distinguish a faint resemblance from a near-verbatim match.
It is better to use one result per concrete confrontation or tightly connected sequence. A whole history usually needs separate notes and repeated reviews.
Routine scoring stays in the browser. The main privacy issue is restored state in the URL and any files you choose to export.