A composed example — an illustrative session, written to show the kind of thing Finch notices and how it says it. Not a real client, and not a real coach’s thread.
VP Engineering, Acme Corp
Alex arrived with a concrete agenda — wanted to discuss the leadership restructure. Within 10 minutes, the conversation shifted to his relationship with Jordan (Analyst Manager). He described feeling "stuck" — she isn't performing but he can't bring himself to have the hard conversation. We explored what "stuck" feels like somatically. He identified tightness in his chest, which he connected to a fear of being seen as "the bad guy." Session ended with Alex committing to a direct conversation with Jordan this week.
The way to go deep with Alex is through his managers, not around them. Every time I try to address his leadership style abstractly, he retreats into frameworks. But when we talk about specific people — Jordan, Priya, the new VP — he drops into genuine feeling. The people ARE the work.
Your instinct about working through the relationships rather than around them is sharp — and it's worth interrogating further. Alex's pattern of intellectualizing is well-documented at this point, but I want to push on something: are you sure you're not also using the relationships as a "safe" way in? Here's what I mean: talking about Jordan feels productive because it generates affect. But the deeper question might be why Alex needs a problematic manager to feel permission to explore his own vulnerability. What if Jordan is performing exactly the role Alex unconsciously needs her to play — the person who "forces" him to feel something? For next session, consider: instead of following Alex into the Jordan content, name the pattern directly. Something like: "I notice that every time we meet, there's a person who's causing you difficulty. I'm curious about what these relationships are doing for you." That reframes the work from problem-solving (his comfort zone) to self-examination (where the growth lives).
Reframing the work
Finch didn't just validate — it pushed back on the coach's framing and offered a deeper hypothesis about the client's relational pattern. This is noticing, not summarization.
Before your next session with Alex, consider: 1. What part of you shows up when Alex intellectualizes? Are you drawn to meet him there, or do you feel the pull to redirect? 2. If you were to name Alex's pattern directly, what resistance do you anticipate — in him and in yourself? 3. What would it look like to hold the tension between supporting Alex and challenging his Protector?
Key capabilities
Upload or paste a session transcript and receive IFS, somatic, and process-level analysis — the kind of noticing that usually waits for your next supervision session, available after every one.
Ask questions, explore hypotheses, and think through difficult dynamics. Claude draws on your full client history to give contextual, theory-informed responses.
Before each session, get a briefing that surfaces recurring themes, predicted dynamics, and specific areas to watch — so you walk in prepared, not guessing.
Bring one real session and see what Finch notices in it. We onboard every coach personally, so the first step is a short conversation.