Frequently Asked Questions

Relationship Design is the work of installing structure into a relationship. We look at the architecture underneath the daily life of it, how time actually gets spent and what both partners are carrying that neither has named. The structure we install is what holds when willpower runs out, and in a full life willpower always runs out. We design a relationship the way high-performers design the rest of what they build, so it runs whether or not the week was kind.

Therapy is interventional. It works on what is already breaking, after the symptom shows. We work on the structure before the symptom forms, or before it forms again. The people we work with are not in crisis. They are running on settings installed years ago that no longer fit the relationship they have now, and we rebuild those settings. When a relationship is in active crisis, therapy is the right call, and we say so and refer.

Coaching is strong on accountability and mindset, and we respect that work. What it does not reach is the architecture underneath the behaviour. New habits installed on an old structure collapse the first hard week. The structure has to come first, and the habits sit on top of it once it holds.

Both. Relationship Structural Design is a methodology Kathie Kozlak built out of her own deliberate reconstruction, a second marriage she designed on purpose after the first one ended. It is also a way of seeing. Once we look at a relationship as a system with load-bearing parts, the work that needs doing becomes clear.

The Relationship Audit is a free structural diagnostic. It reads the architectural state of a relationship and names, in plain language, where the structure is holding and where it is quietly giving way. It is the cleanest first look we offer, and it is where most people begin with us.

About four minutes. We send the result to the email address given at the end. The Audit is built to surface the structural picture quickly rather than to collect a long questionnaire, so it asks only what it needs to read the architecture.

On your own. The Audit is single-respondent by design. One partner answers and the reading still holds, because the structure it reads is the shared one. The other partner does not need to take it, and does not need to know it was taken.

The result lands by email. From there, anyone weighing the work with us books a qualification call with Kathie. Thirty minutes, no charge. We map the gaps together and decide which way of working fits, the six-month Foundation or the one-day Architecture Day, or whether neither is right yet. Nothing is bought before that conversation.

We work with people who have built everything on the outside and are starting to feel the one thing they never deliberately designed. The default is someone inside a partnership who wants to do the work one-on-one. The partner is not required in session, because the design gets installed by the person we work with and applied inside the relationship as life happens. We also work with partnerships where both partners want in. Beyond that, we work with people building a new relationship with intention, and with people reshaping one after a previous relationship ended on a pattern they are determined not to repeat.

No. This is preventive work, not intervention. When a relationship is in active crisis, say a recent disclosure of infidelity or a separation in the last sixty days, the right next step is a therapist, not us. The boundary protects the work, and we can revisit once the acute layer has settled.

Yes, and that is the typical client. Externally thriving, internally slipping. The relationship is not broken, it has gone quiet. Both partners are competent and loyal and slowly becoming strangers in a way neither knows how to name. The structure we install gives both of them the language and the system the relationship has been quietly asking for.

Yes, in two shapes. Builders are single or very early in a new relationship, building with intention after opting out of something flat. For resetters, it is a new relationship after a previous one ended, with a deliberate refusal to repeat the pattern that broke the last one. Both enter through the qualification call rather than the Audit, since the Audit reads a partnered structure.

Six months. It is a structured program with defined phases. The length matches how long it actually takes to install structure that holds, rather than how long it takes to explain an idea and hope it sticks.

Yes. Architecture Day is a one-day intensive. It takes the same structural work and concentrates it into a single focused day, for people who want to redesign the core of the relationship without committing to the six-month program. Foundation goes deeper and holds the work through the full installation over time. Architecture Day gets the central structure mapped and redesigned in one sitting. On the qualification call we look at which one fits.

Architecture Day is a single day of focused structural work. We map the relationship as it stands and find where the structure is failing, then redesign the core of it in that one day. It is the concentrated version of the work we do across the six-month program, built for people who want to move on the structure now rather than over half a year.

The Audit comes first, then the qualification call. On the call we map the gaps together and decide which way of working fits, the six-month Foundation or the one-day Architecture Day. From there we begin with the structural assessment of the relationship as it stands today. Nothing is committed before the call.

The work is built for a life that is already full. We design around the rhythms a high-performer already runs on, which means no daily homework and no multi-hour weekly sessions. The exact weekly commitment depends on the phase and the situation, and we walk through it on the qualification call so the answer is grounded in the real calendar we are designing for.

Yes. Busy is the normal starting condition here, not the exception. The structure is built to live inside a calendar that already runs hot. If the work asked for two more hours a day, it would be the wrong work for this client, and it would be the wrong design.

No. The default work is solo. One person does the session work and learns the structural language, then carries the design into the relationship as it lives. Both partners feel the result, because the architecture is shared infrastructure rather than a behaviour demanded of the other person. When both partners want in, the engagement adapts to that, and both paths are real.

Both. The structural framework is defined, and the application is specific to the relationship we are designing. There is a clear sequence and there are clear deliverables. Inside that, we adjust to what the relationship is actually doing, not to a general theory of what relationships should do.

No. The work is with the person in front of us. The relationship shifts because the architecture shifts, and the partner usually responds to the new architecture. That response is the partner's own, never something we engineer into them.

We set that out on the qualification call, once we both know the work is a fit.

No. We install structure rather than promise outcomes, and what a relationship does with that structure depends on what both people bring to it. We have watched relationships grow into something neither partner thought was still available, and we have watched people use the same clarity to see that the relationship they were in was not the one they wanted to keep building. Both are honest results of the work.

Yes. Nothing said inside the engagement leaves it without explicit written consent. Privacy is built into how we operate, and the privacy policy on keffect.pl sets out the formal commitments. The informal one is older and simpler. The work stays between us.