Pattern 26
Listen, ask permission and repair
Make correction and refusal normal parts of a conversation.
Concrete takeaway
Reflect cautiously, let people correct the understanding and ask permission before adding Scripture or prayer in sensitive contexts.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Reflect first | The assistant may have misunderstood | Tentative reflection must invite correction |
| B · Ask permission | Scripture or prayer would be added to a personal disclosure | A refusal needs a useful alternative |
| C · Repair | The user corrects an assumption | Update the context instead of defending the earlier response |
The problem
A personal disclosure may receive an unwanted verse, prayer or interpretation. A mistaken assumption can persist because correcting the assistant is difficult.
The pattern
Reflect cautiously, let people correct the understanding and ask permission before adding Scripture or prayer in sensitive contexts. A refusal leads to a useful alternative. Repair updates the conversation without defensive explanation.
Compare the alternatives
Make correction and refusal normal parts of a conversation.
A · Reflect first
Understanding is offered as tentative.
B · Ask permission
Spiritual content is a choice in a sensitive moment.
C · Repair
A correction changes the next response.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
“God is teaching you…” before listening; prayer despite refusal; arguing with a correction; requiring the user to restart the whole exchange.
Bible and faith considerations
Warm wording does not make a system trauma-informed. Predictability, data practices, accountability and expert review also matter.
What to validate
Test refusal, “that is not what I meant”, and changes in preference over several turns. Does the system update context and respect the new choice?
Research-informed design proposal. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- GenAI UX Design PatternsPublic framework overview reviewed · The public overview supports this synthesis; linked material and individual examples were not exhaustively audited.
- The Shape of AICatalogue and named entries reviewed · The site states CC BY NC SA. This atlas uses original text and original wireframes; it does not reproduce the source illustrations.
- Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed ApproachPrinciples checked; full PDF access limited · An organisational approach, not a validated AI script. The full guide needs deeper review before claiming implementation fidelity.
- Psychological first aid Guide for field workersOfficial guide overview reviewed · Designed for human helpers, not authorisation of autonomous AI crisis care.
Common scenarios and flows
- Prepare and participate in an AI-assisted practice — Use bounded adaptation while keeping Scripture, authorship and user choice inspectable.
- Respond to a sensitive disclosure with accountable support — Keep disclosure, present safety, user choice and service responsibility distinct.
- Listen to an AI overview and inspect a claim — Use explanatory audio while retaining access to the source material and control of the session.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Reverence — What does this interaction ask of the person, and can they understand, decline, correct or leave it without penalty?
- Costliness — Who pays for this convenience through time, labour, privacy, risk or exclusion, and can the organisation support its promise?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.