You now have a method rather than an opinion. The three questions work on any situation, they can be asked quietly, and together they produce a description of what a conflict is actually about, which is the prerequisite for deciding anything defensible about it. Two things are worth carrying forward. The first is that nobody in the scenarios behaved badly and the cost still fell on whoever could least afford it, so reading conflict through power is not a search for a culprit. The second is that the hardest of the three questions is the last one, because arrangements everyone treats as normal do not feel like decisions at all. That is exactly where the next section begins: communication is the place where what counts as normal gets established, repeated, and occasionally interrupted.