Hi, GSM. I have a suggestion for you.  My suggestion is: (1) rather than collect ideas right now, you could share what problems you have with your hypotheses, your hypotheses about why people produce meta-model violations in their speech to you. I think it's a challenge to: (2) notice what motivations or inferences you ascribe, by habit or emotion, to other people. If you find fault in your determinations about what motivates people, and what inferences you ascribe to them, then share your discussion of those faults, just like you have asked forum guests to do. I have: (3) evidence procedures I use to decide what someone's motives or thoughts are. My evidence procedures for getting information about someone's: (4) motives (5) thoughts(inferences) are selected according to context, and may or may not be any good.  In any case, to try to list them all to you, along with example contexts that illustrate them, would be too time-consuming, and also too personal. I will say that, in an argument I make to myself, in which evidence I gather by these procedures form the sum of the argument premises, the argument conclusion is reached by convergent support of the conclusion.  By convergent support, I mean: (6) Each premise adds some support to the conclusion, and invalidation of some of the premises does not remove all weight from the conclusion. A fault I sometimes find in how I decide that someone thought something, or had a motivation, is that I rely on scanty evidence, or a short list of premises, to form a conclusion/conviction, a conviction that I go ahead and act on. There's a communication technique, called: (7) perception checking The perception-checking involves the steps: (8) giving your communication partner a description of his problem behavior (verbal or nonverbal behavior) (9) offering at least two interpretations of your communication partner's inferences or motives,  that you hypothesize are part of his problem behavior (10) requesting feedback from your communication partner, feedback that contains the content of your communication partner's inferences or motives, inferences or motives that were part of his problem behavior. When doing step (9), it helps to: (11) offer an interpretation that you wish is true, if you will also offer other interpretations that you wish are false. -nj