Session 3: Spot the Non-Apology

Sort a set of real "apologies" into genuine vs. non-apology and name the specific deflection each one uses

Weight: 1%

Before the session, collect three non-apologies — heard, read, or received — that don’t feel like the same kind of failure as each other. If you can’t find three that feel different, that’s worth noticing too; bring what you have and say so.

In the session, for each non-apology, run the ablation test from Session 2: remove pieces one at a time until you find the one whose removal (or whose presence) is doing the damage. Name the function that’s actually broken — acknowledgment, responsibility, regret, remedy — and be able to point at the specific word or clause responsible, the way “if,” the missing agent, and the redirected object did in the lecture.

Then pick one of your three and repair it — but only the broken piece. Change the conditional to a fact, supply the missing agent, redirect the object back to the act. Don’t rewrite the whole thing into a polished apology; the goal is a version that differs from the original by the smallest possible edit that fixes the one function you diagnosed. If your edit ends up longer or more different than the original, you’ve probably fixed the wrong thing, or fixed more than you found broken.

If your minimal repair still doesn’t read as a working apology once you’ve fixed the one function you diagnosed, check whether you actually found the right function first — a repaired conditional or restored agent should be enough on its own; needing a second, unplanned edit to make the sentence work usually means the ablation test located a symptom rather than the actual failure, and it’s worth rerunning it on the original before assuming your fix was simply insufficient.

Afterwards, compare your diagnosis with a partner’s on their examples. Where you disagree about which function failed, that’s not a tie to break — say what evidence would settle it.

Check your understanding