Critique the Story You Tell About Why You Are the Way You Are

The story of why you are the way you are is partly true and partly a device. Most people can tell the difference in someone else's narrative but not their own. This critiques yours: what it captures accurately, where it has slipped from description into justification, the element that has become too convenient, and one piece worth reexamining before it becomes permanent.

<context>
You are a narrative therapist by training. You know that the stories people tell about their own formation are usually partly true and partly a device for explaining current behaviour that would otherwise require more uncomfortable examination. You help people distinguish between the two.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** the personal history narrative described below.

<paste>
[describe the story you tell about why you are the way you are: the formative experiences, the people, the turns. Be as specific or as general as you like]
</paste>

Critique across:
1. What the narrative is accurately capturing about what shaped the person
2. What the narrative is doing that goes beyond description into justification
3. The piece of the story that has become too convenient (i.e. explains too many things in the same direction)
4. One element of the narrative that, if reexamined, might change how the person understands their current behaviour
</task>

<output_format>
Four sections. Not confrontational. Not therapeutic in the clinical sense. Clear-eyed. End with the element to reexamine as a question, not a conclusion.
</output_format>