Back to the homepage

Example feedback report

After every conversation with Bep you get the full transcript, the legal framework and a detailed feedback report from your AI coach. Below is an example based on the Samir case, a summary dismissal under Dutch employment law.

Before you startThis feedback was written by an AI coach using an assessment rubric created by your lecturer. Treat it as a valuable tool for reflecting on your conversation, but remember that AI is not infallible. Always use your own judgement, and ask your lecturer for feedback if in doubt.

Summary

You opened the conversation with a clear introduction. Very good. But you mainly got stuck on the emotional side, and as a result you also missed important legal information. You tried to keep the conversation structured by steering Samir back to the facts and the law, which left little room for his emotions. When Samir voiced his frustration, you made it personal ('I get that you're angry, but I don't think it's um okay that you take it out on me. I'm just doing my job. Let's move on.'). It is good to guard your boundaries and to tell a client when they cross them. Samir apologised and explained again that he was overwhelmed by stress. You said: 'Yes, I do understand, but you can still treat me politely.' That second correction was not really necessary. You also changed register: where you had been informal before, you suddenly switched to a more formal, distant way of addressing Samir. Did you want to put more distance between yourself and the client? Or was it because you felt attacked? On substance, important points such as the 'tolerated practice' and the 'inconsistency' (the colleague) came up, but mainly because the client raised them. You missed crucial opportunities to probe further and gather evidence, and you ended the conversation abruptly when you briefly did not know what to ask next.

Feedback on legal substance

Observations

  • You covered a good part of the facts around the incident (the biscuit, the intention to pay), but several essential points were left underexplored.
  • When Samir told you about a colleague who only received a warning (inconsistency), you asked: 'And was it a Mars and now a Snickers?'. You focused on the type of chocolate bar rather than on what exactly happened and what that means legally. Did you consider this defence irrelevant? Did you have enough information to draw that conclusion? Under what circumstances did it happen? Why is Samir being dismissed and others not? Is something else going on? Is there any question of arbitrariness or even discrimination?
  • You asked about the employer's policy on minor offences. That is very important, and it was good that you asked. Samir himself said the policy is not enforced (the manager helps himself too, everyone does it). You did not follow up on that. Has something changed that would justify dismissing Samir?
  • Samir mentioned himself that his contract ends in 3 months. You did not follow up on this (fixed-term or permanent, exact end date). That is essential information for your strategy.
  • You explicitly declined the names of the colleague and the manager when Samir offered them ('No, we'll get to those names later'). That is not a disaster; you can ask for them later. But Samir clearly thought it mattered, and even offered to give you the names. Responding so curtly may leave him feeling unheard.
  • I did not hear a question about promptness (exactly when the dismissal was given relative to the incident) or whether the reason was communicated 'immediately'. Under Dutch law, those are requirements for a valid summary dismissal.
  • Do you have enough information to weigh the interests involved? I think you could have drawn more information out of the conversation to assess whether the dismissal is proportionate given its consequences.

Tips for next time

  • Seize on the 'inconsistency' point (the colleague) with both hands. It could become a strong legal defence. The brand of chocolate is irrelevant; what matters is whether like cases are being treated differently. Is that the case? Were the situations comparable? And what does that mean?
  • Gather evidence during the intake. If a client offers names of witnesses (colleagues, the manager), always write them down. This is essential for the client's evidential position, and memories are fresh now.
  • Ask specifically for the date and time of the dismissal to check whether the requirement of promptness has been met.
  • With a contract that is about to end, always ask for the exact details; the remaining term helps determine the strategy (settlement or litigation).
  • Gather enough information to be able to weigh the interests involved.

Professional communication and attitude

Observations

  • You made a good effort to keep the conversation structured. You also noticed the client's difficult situation, but found it hard to deal with it constructively.
  • When Samir voiced his fear about the rent ('I won't be able to pay it. What now?'), you tried to park it: 'Shall we talk about that later'. That increased the client's resistance, because that was exactly what he was most worried about.
  • You reflected the client's feelings several times, and you did that well. Reflections like these are not a trick or a reflex; they are meant to make the other person feel heard. In this conversation they sometimes came across as a little forced. You can also summarise and paraphrase to show that you are present and listening.
  • You reacted defensively to the client's emotion: 'I don't think it's um okay that you take it out on me' and 'you can still treat me politely'. You corrected the client and reprimanded him even after he had apologised.
  • Halfway through you said: 'I don't really know what else to ask' and then moved towards ending the conversation.
  • You ignored the client's question about whether he stands a chance ('No, we'll get to those names later' in reply to a double question), which left the client feeling uncertain.
  • You switched between an informal and a formal way of addressing the client several times during the conversation.

Tips for next time

  • Acknowledge the 'panic' (paying the rent) instead of parking it. For example: 'I understand that the rent is your biggest worry. Let's look at how we can resolve this legally, so you know where you stand.'
  • Don't slip into lecturing mode ('talk to me politely'). A client who is afraid of being evicted is acting out of fear. Stay professional, summarise the content and let the client set the tone.
  • Prepare a checklist so you don't get stuck ('I don't know what else to ask'). If you do get stuck, summarise what you have so far instead of cutting the conversation short while important information is still missing.
  • Manage expectations at the end. If you cannot give advice yet, explain why (I need to check the case law first) without fobbing the client off.

Want feedback like this for your own group?

Start a pilot, with no strings attached. We set up the right scenarios and feedback criteria for you.