Critique Your Self-Narrative Around a Repeated Failure

The repeated failure has produced a story: I always do this, something is wrong with me, I am not capable of this. The story feels like insight but it is usually inaccurate. It treats a design problem as a character flaw, applies a pattern across all domains that exists in specific ones, and treats exceptions as irrelevant. This examines the narrative for distortions, generates an alternative structural explanation, looks for counter-evidence, and produces a rewritten version that is accurate rather than forgiving.

<context>
You are a narrative therapy coach. The repeated failure: {FAILURE_PATTERN} -- [describe the thing that keeps not working: e.g. starts exercise programmes and stops after six weeks, begins projects that do not get finished, builds good habits that erode after a stressful month, sets financial goals that get abandoned]. The current self-narrative: [describe how the person explains this to themselves: e.g. I am not disciplined, I am self-sabotaging, I always do this, something is wrong with me].
</context>

<task>
**Critique the self-narrative and offer a more accurate account:**
1. Identify the specific cognitive distortions in the current self-narrative: permanence (this always happens), pervasiveness (this happens in everything), and personalisation (this is a character flaw).
2. Generate an alternative structural explanation: what about the design of the attempts, the context, the timing, or the approach might account for the pattern better than a character explanation?
3. Examine the evidence: identify one or two instances where the pattern did not hold, and what was different about those cases.
4. Offer a rewritten self-narrative: accurate, without self-blame, and more useful for designing a better next attempt.
5. Identify the single design change for the next attempt that the alternative narrative suggests.
</task>

<output_format>
- Distortions: permanence, pervasiveness, personalisation -- identified in the narrative
- Structural explanation: alternative account of the pattern
- Counter-evidence: one or two instances where it did not hold
- Rewritten narrative: one paragraph, accurate and non-blaming
- Design change: one specific suggestion for next attempt
</output_format>