The client's language is often a better starting point than an image you have stored for the occasion. “I was always on call,” “I had no map,” and “Everyone handed me the bill” already contain a possible picture. Before extending it, ask what the person means. The image may be a useful shorthand, an exhausted phrase, or something they no longer want to use.
This worksheet helps clinicians draft optional language for preparation, consultation, or reflective review. It is not a treatment algorithm or a validated measure. Shapiro's cognitive-interweave concept supplies the clinical foundation; the worksheet is an original editorial tool. [1]
A ten-field drafting worksheet
1. The client's words. Record the exact phrase if clinically appropriate, or use a de-identified summary for consultation. Do not replace “I regret it” with “I am guilty” unless that is what the client means.
2. The observed difficulty. Describe what you actually notice. What supports your understanding that processing is blocked rather than continuing through painful material? Include uncertainty. A high disturbance level or repeated wording is not sufficient by itself.
3. The possible missing distinction. Write it without metaphor: knowledge then versus knowledge now; care versus control; consent versus compliance; accountability versus worth. These are hypotheses to examine, not conclusions to install.
4. The factual boundary. List what is known, what the client reports, and what remains uncertain. Name any fact the proposed image would accidentally invent.
5. The context. Mark preparation, active processing, or reflective work. If the idea requires a long explanation or a practical decision, it probably belongs outside a brief processing interweave.
6. The client's language and permission. Is the image familiar, accessible, and acceptable? What cultural, spiritual, developmental, sensory, or personal meanings might it carry? Could direct language be better?
7. One image. Write one sentence. Remove unnecessary characters and details. Make sure the comparison does not describe the client as broken, contaminated, passive, or valuable only because they can be repaired.
8. One question. Ask about the missing distinction. Leave space for “no,” “I don't know,” or an answer that changes your formulation. Avoid wording that makes agreement the only acceptable response.
9. The mismatch and exit. State when you would not use the image and how you would drop it. “That may not fit; let's return to your words” is a usable exit.
10. What you will observe. Note the client's meaning, present orientation, and response. Do not define success as agreeing, becoming calm, or reaching a particular rating. Identify any reason to pause and reassess.
A completed example
Metaphor: Client's words: “I was the supervisor. I should have stopped it.”
Observed difficulty: In the clinician's broader assessment, processing appears persistently blocked around total responsibility for an established workplace incident. The client remains sufficiently present. The therapist still needs to distinguish what the client could do from what they were formally expected to do.
Possible distinction: Responsibility assigned by a role versus authority and resources actually available within that role.
Factual boundary: The client reports being unable to authorize a particular repair and having notified someone who could. These reports inform the clinical conversation; the therapist is not conducting a legal or workplace investigation. The client's own actions remain open to proportionate examination.
Context: First explore the distinction in reflective work. Consider a brief interweave later only if clinically indicated.
Language and permission: The client has used “I didn't have the keys” to describe limited authority and agrees that this phrase fits.
Image: “Having the title did not necessarily give you every key.”
Question: “Which doors could you actually open?”
Mismatch and exit: The image could imply that the client had no responsibility or could distract from actions they did control. If so, drop it: “Let's be specific about what was and wasn't available to you.”
Observation: Listen for a more accurate account, not absolution. The client may identify both genuine limits and an action they regret. Either can inform the next clinical decision.
Test the draft before using it
Read your question with the answer you do not expect. If “I did have a choice” makes the metaphor fall apart, it may be too committed to innocence. If “I am still in danger” contradicts the image, you may be assuming present safety. If “I don't want to forgive” makes the image pointless, forgiveness may be its hidden agenda.
Check the image's implied recovery story. Does it require growth after harm, restored function, a return to a former self, or gratitude? Remove those requirements. An image can acknowledge possibility without making a promise.
Then write a direct alternative. For the example above: “What authority and resources did you actually have?” If that question is clearer, it may be the better choice. A clinician does not need to use a metaphor to justify having written one.
Build a small, accountable collection
If you keep a personal prompt library, organize it by clinical purpose and include cautions. Store only what is appropriate under your confidentiality and recordkeeping obligations. Do not preserve identifiable client language in an unsecured teaching file or reuse a distinctive client story without the necessary permission.
Mark authorship accurately. A familiar question may appear in many clinical traditions; do not claim invention simply because you wrote your version independently. Distinguish your adaptation from a quotation and verify any source before attributing it.
Revise from experience and consultation, but do not treat a favorable response as validation. A small collection with clear limits is more useful than a large collection that encourages automatic matching.