The therapeutic process has to remain tolerable for both individual and couple. I use the term activation as a short-hand for the point where one or both partners become so triggered that the intensity increases and either individual starts operating from a place of survival. This impacts the interaction and typically leads to an increase in corrosive actions. Most importantly, it means the intensity has exceeded what the process can work with. This becomes visible in the nature of the interaction. The conversation shifts into something combative, oppositional, and at times openly hostile.

Tracking activation is introduced when this is visible in the room. It is not introduced as a general skill or as psychoeducation. It is introduced because the interaction has already moved outside a workable range. At that point, the focus shifts away from content and onto intensity. The task is to make explicit that nothing can change at that level.

One part of this is introducing the window of tolerance as a frame and linking it directly to what is happening between them (Siegel, 2012). As activation increases, individuals move into survival responses such as fight, flight, or shutdown, and the interaction follows. The purpose is to normalise this process rather than to locate the problem in either person. Both partners are capable of becoming activated, which shifts the interaction away from blame.

Within the window, a person can remain engaged, reflective, and responsive. Once that capacity is lost, there may still be talking, but there is no longer a conversation.

The operational threshold is simple. The moment either partner loses the capacity to listen to the other and remain present in the conversation, the interaction is no longer constructive and is interrupted.

This is worked with directly in the room. The therapist interrupts the interaction, often repeatedly, and redirects attention to activation. The conversation is stopped. The focus shifts to where each person is in terms of intensity. This is not a one-off intervention. It happens as many times as needed. Through this repetition, the couple begins to experience stepping out of escalation rather than continuing through it. The capacity to do this is not taught. It is built in real time.

To support this, I use a simple scale. Zero reflects being regulated, with the ability to listen, take in a different view, and respond rather than react. Ten reflects a level of activation where behaviour is no longer deliberate but reactive. The point is not precision. It is awareness.

Activation rarely arrives without warning. It tends to announce itself through what I call flags. These flags are not things to look for in the other person. They are shifts that each person has to notice in themselves. This is a critical distinction. In most relationships, attention is directed outward. What you are doing, what you are saying, what is wrong with you. Tracking activation reverses that. The focus moves inward. What is happening in me right now.

The flags are the operational way of doing this. They are indicators that something has shifted internally and that the interaction is moving toward a point where it will no longer be constructive.

Perceptual flags refer to a shift in how you begin to see the other person. As activation rises, perception narrows. You start noticing specific things, often the same things you have noticed many times before. The tone in their voice, the way they look at you, a particular gesture, a sigh. These may be real. The point is not whether they are accurate. The point is that your attention is narrowing around them. Your perception becomes organised around threat. You are no longer taking in the whole person. You are focusing on selected cues that confirm a particular view. That narrowing is the flag.

Emotional flags are what you begin to feel. There is a shift in your internal state. This can take different forms depending on the person. For some it is anger. For others it is a sense of hopelessness, anxiety, irritation, or discomfort. Often it feels familiar, like something you have been in before. The intensity may feel disproportionate to what is happening in that moment. That is the flag. It indicates that something is happening in your body, not just in the interaction.

Behavioural flags are the impulses that follow. The urge to act in a particular way. To interrupt, to push harder, to say something hurtful, to shut the conversation down, to withdraw, to leave. This is not the action itself, but the pull toward it. It is the moment where your body is already moving in a particular direction. That impulse is the flag.

All three flags point to the same shift. Something has changed internally. As this happens, perception narrows, emotion intensifies, and behaviour becomes more reactive. There is no longer listening and curiosity, but scanning for threat. This is a survival state.

Tracking activation means learning to notice these flags in real time, as the interaction unfolds, before the sequence completes itself.

In the room, this is used to slow the interaction and shift attention away from content and toward what is happening in each person as it unfolds. This is repeated across sessions. What develops is the capacity to notice activation and step out of it, rather than being carried forward by it.

This then becomes a between-session task. Each partner is asked to track their own activation during the week. The focus is initially individual. What is happening in me. Where am I on the scale. What are my flags. This strengthens ownership and shifts attention away from monitoring the other.

Over time, a second layer is introduced. Each partner begins to notice activation in the other. This changes how behaviour is interpreted. Instead of “you do not care” or “there you go again,” the frame becomes “you are activated.” This allows the interaction to be slowed rather than pushed further.

Tracking activation is therefore not a technique that is taught once but a capacity that is developed through practice. It is practised in the room through repeated interruption and then extended into the week as an ongoing task. It is returned to across sessions as a way of regulating intensity and keeping the interaction within a workable range.

This becomes particularly relevant when couples ask what to do when things escalate at home. Notice activation. Become aware of how the relational pattern becomes amplified, not as something anyone does to the other, but as something that takes over.

The safe word is one way of doing this.

The safe word is a structured interruption used when activation is rising beyond a workable level. It does not process the interaction. It stops it before it becomes destructive. Its effectiveness comes from agreement. It works only when it is clearly defined and consistently honoured.

When escalation increases, the shift into defence happens quickly. Tone sharpens, language becomes absolute, and the goal of the interaction moves from understanding to protection. The safe word exists for that threshold. It is a pre-agreed signal that the interaction is no longer constructive.

When the safe word is spoken, the conversation stops immediately. Not after one more sentence. Not after a final point. The interaction is interrupted before further damage is done. This is containment, not avoidance.

The safe word stands for something precise. I am no longer regulated. I am about to escalate this further. I cannot remain constructive in this moment. It does not mean you are wrong. It does not mean I am right. It does not mean the conversation is over. It means continuing now will cause damage.

It reframes what is happening away from intention and commitment and toward capacity. Right now I cannot do this, and if I continue I may say and do things that I regret.

The use of the safe word, when initiated, is clearly defined as a way of caring for the relationship.

The safe word only works if it is linked to activation. It is used when either partner recognises, through the flags, that they are moving outside their window of tolerance. The tracking provides the awareness. The safe word provides the action.

The safe word stops escalation.

I also introduce another agreed way of changing what happens at home. Signalling is a non-verbal way of indicating that one person is no longer okay and that something has happened that needs to be addressed. The couple agrees on a specific object that carries this meaning. It can be anything distinct and neutral. One couple used a ceramic pomegranate. When it was placed on the table, it meant something precise. I am not okay.

Where the safe word is used in the middle of an escalating conversation, signalling is used at home when something needs to be resolved or repaired. It prevents ongoing accumulation and reduces the likelihood that it is expressed under pressure and escalates the interaction.

Signalling initiates repair before escalation.

In session, the couple is supported to agree on the object or signal that will be used and what is required in response. When either person sees the signal, it is framed as a cry for help. Something has happened between us in the last few days which has impacted me and needs to be addressed. This is typically introduced after activation tracking and the safe word have been established, and it links directly to the later process of initiating a repair conversation.

Signalling is a non-verbal way of communicating that something needs to be addressed, as a call to the other to engage in a deliberate process to repair what has occurred.

The process of integrating regulation is spread across the therapeutic work. Establishing the distinction between being able to engage and being in a survival state is the starting point, alongside normalising that anyone becomes activated at times and that this needs to be tracked individually.

The flags provide a way of noticing and taking individual ownership.

The safe word becomes a way of interrupting escalation at home, made possible through the repeated experience of this interruption being carried out by the therapist in session.

Later in the process, signalling is introduced as a non-verbal way of indicating the need for repair, shifting the interaction toward asking for help rather than allowing accumulation or engaging in corrosive interaction under pressure.