# The disagreement matrix for a better book-club conversation

Readers often argue at different levels: one cites an event, another interprets motive, and a third evaluates the choice. This matrix shows where the disagreement actually sits.

## Place each claim

Save one page that makes the method useful, then complete the fields in your own words:

| Field | Prompt |
|---|---|
| **Observation** | What happened on the page? |
| **Interpretation** | What does the event suggest? |
| **Evaluation** | Was the choice admirable, harmful, wise, or unfair? |
| **Value** | Which principle makes that evaluation matter? |

Keep the page number as the route back to the source. Avoid copying a protected passage when a short paraphrase will do.

## Move one row at a time

- Resolve factual observation before debating motive.
- Offer a second interpretation that fits the same event.
- Name the value difference when evaluations remain opposed.

Write one working sentence:

> My current reading is ____________________________________________.

## Review rule

End with one question the page cannot settle alone. The matrix is useful when it turns a verdict into a specific, revisitable disagreement.

## Boundaries

This is a private reading-reflection aid, not a quotation archive, plot substitute, academic citation, factual verification, or proof of an author's intention. For consequential claims, return to the full passage and verify outside facts independently.

## Optional iPhone workflow

I am the developer of **Reading Journal: TabMap**, an iPhone and iPad companion for physical-book readers. It lets a reader save a page, a reason such as **Discuss** or **Question**, and an intensity, with an optional private note. The free version includes one complete book map; no account is required, and books, markers, labels, and optional notes stay on the device.

[View Reading Journal: TabMap on the App Store](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/reading-journal-tabmap/id6796663483)

Campaign marker: `day12-strong-distribution`