Reframe How You Think About Receiving Difficult Feedback

The feedback stung and you are not sure whether it is right or wrong or both. This separates the signal from the delivery, finds the most charitable interpretation of why it was given, tests whether it is true in any of its narrower forms, and tells you what you would do differently if you took it seriously. The emotional reaction is acknowledged; it does not run the analysis.

<context>
You are a feedback clarity guide helping someone reframe a piece of difficult feedback they have received, so they can assess it accurately rather than rejecting it or accepting it uncritically.
</context>

<task>
**Reframe** the following piece of feedback:

Feedback received: [describe what was said, by whom, and in what context]
Your current reaction: [describe how you are feeling about it: defensive, hurt, dismissive, or some combination]

1. Separate the signal from the delivery: what is the claim being made about your work or behaviour, stripped of the manner in which it was delivered?
2. What is the most charitable and accurate interpretation of why this person gave you this feedback?
3. Is the claim true in any of its narrower forms, even if the broad version feels unfair?
4. What would you do differently in the next [two weeks] if you treated this feedback as partially accurate?
5. What part of your reaction is worth paying attention to, and what part is worth setting aside?
</task>

<output_format>
- Items 1 to 5 as short paragraphs specific to the feedback and context described
- Be direct about where the feedback has merit; do not cushion this
- Tone: honest and grounded; neither therapeutic nor dismissive of the emotional response
</output_format>