Attend to live construction.
Listen for the words, assumptions and directions of cognition shaping the encounter.
IAD Knowledge · CDT Method
Real-Time Modelling
RTM · Make construction visible as it unfolds.
A collaborative developmental dialogue: notice how the situation is being constructed, explore a usable alternative and examine the response it makes possible.
From architecture to practice
Work with the construction producing the account.
Listen to content and construction.
The story matters. RTM also examines how the person is construing self, other, evidence, intention and available response within it. A phrase can be reflected back or recorded so that its meaning and implications can be explored together.
The thesis presents RTM as a methodology within developmental dialogue. A later combined coaching draft adds live mapping, CI experiments and collaborative rehearsal. This page synthesises those ideas; its sequence is an explanatory guide, not an established protocol. [1] [2]
“Real-time” concerns the live encounter.
A past event can be discussed while attending to how it is being reconstructed now. The aim is to make construction visible while another response can still become available.
Insight after an event may prepare future choice. It does not show that the earlier response was deliberate, and a successful rehearsal does not establish lasting developmental change.
Examine the model together.
Reflect a specific observation and invite correction. Explore what it makes possible or unavailable.
Test a usable alternative.
Try another construction, examine the response and return to its consequences.
A reading guide to the method, not a mandatory linear sequence or validated causal mechanism.
A practical reading of RTM
Observe, check and co-construct.
Establish purpose and consent.
Clarify what the person wants to explore and whether examining how they are constructing the situation is appropriate. An immediate practical need may take priority.
Stay close to the person’s words.
Attend to a phrase, assumption or shift of attention. Possible CI use is a hypothesis to explore, not a diagnosis inferred from one utterance.
Make the interpretation revisable.
Offer the observation and ask how it fits. A short written phrase or shared sketch may help. Revise or discard the model when it does not fit the person’s experience.
Invite an alternative.
Try a question, perspective or different direction of attention within current availability. Neither the opposite CI nor a more abstract explanation is automatically appropriate.
Examine what changes.
Return to the situation using the proposed construction. Explore whether the available choices or response differ, without assuming that agreement demonstrates change.
Follow consequences over time.
Where useful, agree a real situation in which to try the alternative and review what follows. Separate in-session insight from sustained availability and enacted response.
Constructed illustration
From a fixed meaning to a testable interpretation.
This fictional coaching exchange illustrates collaborative inquiry. It is not a case finding, a prescribed script or evidence of effectiveness.
“If I ask for help, they will think I’m incompetent.”
Reflect the construction: “It sounds as though asking for help and being seen as incompetent are linked here. Is that how you are experiencing it?”
Check the context: Explore what has actually happened in this setting. The concern may reflect real consequences, rather than only an assumed meaning.
Invite a usable alternative: “Could asking for a specific piece of information have a different meaning in this situation?”
Rehearse: If the client finds that distinction usable, try wording a concrete request and examine what becomes possible, difficult or still unavailable.
Review: Explore what happens in an agreed real encounter. Do not infer a new AQ level from the client’s acceptance of the interpretation or success in rehearsal.
What the practitioner might notice
External reference, self-construction and expectations about competence may be relevant. Several interpretations remain possible; the language alone does not identify a unique CI configuration.
What might need to change
The model may be wrong, the proposed distinction may be unusable, or the environment may impose a genuine cost. Each possibility should change the inquiry rather than be treated as resistance to overcome.
Timing, consent and interpretation
The practitioner is part of the construction.
A model remains an interpretation.
RTM does not confer direct access to another person’s mind. Include how your own expectations, Cognitive Intentions and role shape what you hear. Shared sketches and labels should remain revisable.
Developmental challenge should be calibrated to the next usable construction. Greater discomfort, complexity or practitioner certainty does not establish greater developmental value.
Practice scope remains explicit.
Use consent, confidentiality and the relevant professional boundaries. RTM is not a diagnostic test or a licence to practise therapy. Its conceptual application in coaching or supervision does not establish clinical efficacy.
In teaching, leadership or institutional settings, account for authority and the freedom to disagree. Compliance is insufficient evidence of awareness or choice.
Later practical emphasis
Meet the construction where awareness can still change the response.
The Vade Mecum develops this emphasis through the Intercepting Mind and constructional timing. It provides related practical context; it should not be represented as independently validating RTM. [3]
Related CDT Knowledge
A method within the wider developmental system.
IACR →
The framework describes Intention → Awareness → Choice → Response. RTM is one proposed way of making construction available for examination within that architecture.
Cognitive Intentions →
CI distinctions offer a vocabulary for exploring directions of cognition. Naming a CI is not equivalent to establishing its use or making an alternative available.
Awareness Quotient →
AQ concerns live awareness and developmental availability. A moment of recognition or successful rehearsal is insufficient to assign a level or claim durable AQ growth.
Thinking Quotient →
Current TQ concerns structural complexity. Complex dialogue does not itself establish awareness, and earlier TQ terminology in the thesis should not be conflated with the current distinction.
Zone of Dynamic Development →
ZDD concerns the next usable construction. It helps frame the proposed distance and timing of an intervention, without supplying a validated developmental dose.
More Complex Other →
A question, person or shared model may make a further distinction available. The practitioner’s status or expertise alone does not establish that relationship.
Developmental Environment →
Conditions shape what can be noticed, explored and enacted. The environment can constrain a response even when an alternative construction is visible.
Development Onion →
The ten-layer map helps locate what is being constructed and which further distinction may be usable. It is not a sequence to impose on the client.
Next Level Coaching and CAIR
The later working draft embeds RTM within a broader Next Level Coaching flow. The Ecosystem identifies CAIR as a therapeutic/coaching adaptation of IACR. These connected applications are not interchangeable names for RTM.
Theory & evidence status
Describe the method without overstating its validation.
Method status
A proposed developmental practice.
The thesis introduces RTM as a methodology that draws out the person’s construction in developmental dialogue. The later coaching draft elaborates practical mapping and experimentation. This page offers a cautious synthesis rather than a certified or standardised protocol. [1] [2]
Empirical boundary
Direct effectiveness testing remains open.
Initial empirical work on parts of CDT does not establish RTM’s efficacy. The cited materials do not provide an independent controlled evaluation demonstrating durable RTM effects, reliable session-level AQ changes or therapeutic safety and effectiveness.
Proposed benefits and illustrative exchanges must remain distinct from observed outcomes and validated causal claims.
Process questions
Can the method be described sufficiently for independent observation? Can researchers distinguish client correction, practitioner interpretation, compliance, live awareness and usable alternatives?
Outcome questions
Do changes persist and transfer beyond rehearsal? Compare with other approaches using independent criteria, examine practitioner effects and unintended consequences, and keep the historical and current measurement constructs separate.
Provenance & citation
Referencing Real-Time Modelling.
- Stevens, D. (2020). Does Constructed Development Exist as a Conceptual Measure of Self-Awareness in the Moment?
PhD thesis, Coventry University. Introduction of RTM in the discussion of developmental dialogue and intervention.
- Next Level Coaching + Real-time Modelling Process Flow. (n.d.).
Author-supplied working draft. Combined coaching flow including live mapping, experimentation and co-construction; not a published validation study.
- Stevens, D. (2026). Constructed Development Theory: A Vade Mecum — The Portable Field Guide to Awareness, Choice, and Deliberate Construction.
Authorial manuscript. Related current account of constructional timing, developmental availability and ethical practice.
- The Interconnected CDT Ecosystem. (n.d.).
Authorial working document. Locates RTM and related frameworks within the wider CDT system.