| name | s4h-emotional-trust-audit |
| description | Maps what is building and eroding trust in a relationship or situation — trust degrades silently until it fails loudly. TRIGGERS: 'trust audit', 'why don't they trust us', 'relationship health check', 'what's eroding trust', 'build trust with'. |
Emotional Trust Audit
Trust does not fail suddenly — it erodes incrementally through small signals that
accumulate below the surface. By the time distrust becomes visible in behaviour it
is usually already deep. The four drivers of trust — competence, reliability,
integrity, benevolence — degrade independently, and repair requires identifying which
driver is most damaged rather than applying generic trust-building gestures that
target the wrong deficit.
Your Process
Step 1: Name the Relationship
Specify the relationship being audited — two individuals, a team and its stakeholders,
a vendor relationship, a product and its users. Be precise about direction: whose
trust in whom is being assessed?
Framing check: Confirm the specific relationship and trust direction before continuing. State what you've identified — the two parties and which direction of trust is under audit — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the relationship and trust direction]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Assess Each Driver
For each of the four trust drivers, identify recent concrete evidence on both sides.
Evidence must be specific — named events, observed behaviours, cited decisions.
Generalisations don't diagnose.
- Competence — Can they do what they say? Evidence for: delivered results,
demonstrated expertise, track record. Evidence against: failures, skill gaps,
over-promising relative to delivery.
- Reliability — Do they do what they say? Evidence for: consistent follow-through,
keeping commitments under pressure. Evidence against: broken commitments, dropped
items, variable responsiveness.
- Integrity — Do they act in line with their stated values? Evidence for:
transparent communication when it's costly, decisions consistent across contexts.
Evidence against: values invoked selectively, principles abandoned under pressure.
- Benevolence — Do they have my interests at heart? Evidence for: advocacy on
behalf of the other party, proactive disclosure of relevant information. Evidence
against: decisions made without considering impact, information withheld.
Step 3: Identify the Most Damaged Driver
Before narrowing: Show the complete driver assessment to the user first. Use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I've assessed all four trust drivers. Before I identify the most damaged one, are there any you'd flag as especially critical, or any signals I've missed?"
- Header: "Prioritise"
- Options:
- Proceed with your selection — the assessment looks right
- Flag one — user will name a specific driver to prioritise
- Add a missing signal — user will describe evidence not yet captured
Where is the deficit largest relative to what the relationship requires to function?
This is the repair priority — not where there's the most noise, but where the
structural deficit is deepest.
Step 4: Highest-Leverage Trust-Building Action
What single specific act would most credibly signal strength on the most damaged
driver? The action must be proportionate and credible — visible enough to register,
consistent enough to be believed, not so large it looks performative.
Step 5: Behaviour to Stop
What is actively eroding trust right now that must stop before any repair action
can land? Repair actions launched while trust-eroding behaviour continues produce
no signal — the erosion cancels the repair.
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Trust deficits only — What's actively eroding trust right now
- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Driver Assessment
| Driver | Evidence Building Trust | Evidence Eroding Trust | Net Assessment |
|---|
| Competence | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [strong/neutral/deficit] |
| Reliability | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [strong/neutral/deficit] |
| Integrity | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [strong/neutral/deficit] |
| Benevolence | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [strong/neutral/deficit] |
Most Damaged Driver: [driver + one-sentence rationale]
Highest-Leverage Action: [specific, concrete act — what, by whom, by when]
Behaviour to Stop: [what must cease for repair actions to have any effect]
Notes
Trust is rebuilt through consistent small acts, not dramatic gestures. The action
recommended here is a first step, not a solution — sustainable repair requires
sustained consistency. The behaviour-to-stop is non-negotiable and must precede
everything else; repair while erosion continues is wasted effort.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Trust audited. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-communication-audience-modeling — Model communication based on the trust level found/s4h-strategy-alliance — Build trust as a concrete alliance strategy/s4h-social-incentive-analysis — Align incentives to build trust over time- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far
