The 2024-2025 literature lands exactly where KK's 11-dimension Human Model already stands. Repair is a dyadic event — it only exists between two people — which is precisely KH-004 (Dyadic Model): compatibility emerges from interaction, not from summing two profiles. But the field keeps averaging repair across people and populations, the mistake KH-001 (Personal Baseline) warns against. KK's move: measure each person's repair relative to their own baseline — a naturally fast-recoverering person and a slow-recoverering person are not in the same state when they take 3 turns to repair — and then compare two baselined individuals to each other (extending KH-009's rhythm match into the repair domain). For KKMatch, this means the matching and coaching engines should compute a Conflict Repair Baseline — repair latency, completion rate, and de-escalation style — from consented guided interaction, read per person and per dyad, not from a population rule or from conflict count. Repair becomes a first-party, consented interaction signal rather than a claim read off static traits.

KK Hypothesis (KH-001 + KH-004 + KH-006 + KH-009 + KH-013): We propose (KH-013) that a dyad's recovery profile after a breakdown — repair latency in turns, repair-completion rate, and de-escalation style — measured relative to the dyad's own baseline (extending KH-001, KH-009), predicts sustained rapport and re-engagement better than conflict frequency or static trait similarity. This operationalizes the Dyadic Model (KH-004) and Interaction Adaptation (KH-006) at the conflict level. We predict that among consented KKMatch dyads, a baseline-relative repair-compatibility score outperforms conflict-frequency and trait-similarity baselines on 30-day re-engagement and reported rapport. This is a KK-original, falsifiable claim; it is NOT established science.

KK Experiment design (first-party, consented): In KKMatch's guided双人 interaction, each opted-in pair navigates a short structured disagreement task. We compute per-user repair baselines (typical turns-to-repair, completion rate, de-escalation style) and then a Conflict Repair Compatibility score = alignment of the two users' repair baselines within a tolerance band (extending KH-009). We will (a) test whether the repair-compatibility score adds predictive value over conflict-frequency and trait/interest similarity for 30-day re-engagement and reported rapport, and (b) compare a baseline-relative repair match vs an absolute-similarity match on the same outcomes. Prediction (KH-013): baseline-relative repair match wins. We will publish results once n >= 300 consented dyads. All repair signals are first-party, consented, and revocable; no interaction signal leaves the user's control without explicit opt-in.

Primary and open sources (2024-2025, grade S): (1) Wilder, S., Prager, K. J. & Garapati, S. (2024), 'But I said I'm sorry: Helpfulness of romantic couples' efforts to reconcile after conflict', Personal Relationships, 31(3), 836-854 (Wiley; accessible). Sample: 217 heterosexual cohabiting couples completing relationship-satisfaction questionnaires, a recorded in-lab conflict discussion, and 14 daily diaries of conflict and two reconciliation strategies (Active Repair, Letting Go). Finding: daily positive conflict behavior (attentive listening) predicted more helpful reconciliatory attempts; daily negative conflict behavior (contemptuous communication, conflict expansion) and habitual demand/withdraw did not predict less helpful reconciliation. Limitation: self-report + daily diaries, cross-sectional reconciliation measurement, heterosexual-only sample. (2) Goddard, A. & Gillespie, A. (2025), 'Conversational repairs on Reddit: Widely initiated but often uncompleted', PLOS ONE, 20(1), e0316618 (open access). Sample: 25 English subreddits, 3,750 interactions, 157,667 turns; 585 interactions hand-coded. Finding: repair initiations present in all 25 subreddits and 58.48% of interactions; likelihood exceeds 50% by the 6th turn; but 44.80% of initiations received no response and went uncompleted — repair is common yet frequently fails online. Limitation: text-only, public, asynchronous, self-selected communities; no relationship-outcome follow-up. (3) Li, X. & Lougheed, J. P. (2025), 'From friction to flow: Dyadic affective flexibility during and after conflicts predicts trajectories of mother-adolescent relationships', Developmental Psychology (APA; DOI 10.1037/dev0001939). Longitudinal: 201 adolescents (11-12) and mothers, two recorded discussions (conflict + happy memory), then annual closeness/conflict reports for 5 years including COVID-period waves. Finding: greater dynamic flexibility (during conflict) and reactive flexibility (repair after conflict) predicted greater and increasing closeness, especially early-to-mid adolescence, and less intense/diverse conflict. Limitation: specific dyad type (parent-adolescent), Western/Caucasian-skewed sample. (4) Jöhnk, H., Sevincer, A. T. & Oettingen, G. (2025), 'Mental contrasting and conflict management in satisfied and unsatisfied romantic relationships', Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 42(2), 367-391 (SAGE; open access CC BY). Two experiments: N=274 (predominantly satisfied) and N=270 (less satisfied). Finding: mental contrasting (imagining resolution vs. the inner obstacle) improved resolution of solvable conflicts over two weeks in satisfied relationships and increased mental engagement with severe conflicts in less-satisfied ones. Limitation: short 2-week window, online samples, experimentally induced cognition rather than naturalistic repair.

Strictly, the evidence supports: (a) positive conflict behavior — especially attentive listening — is associated with more helpful reconciliation, while negative behavior is surprisingly not the main driver of failed repair (Wilder et al. 2024); (b) repair is a near-universal conversational system — present in 58.48% of online interactions — but is fragile, with 44.80% of repair attempts left uncompleted (Goddard & Gillespie 2025); (c) dyadic affective flexibility during and after conflict longitudinally predicts increasing closeness (Li & Lougheed 2025); (d) cognitively framing a conflict's resolution (mental contrasting) helps resolve solvable conflicts (Jöhnk et al. 2025). It does NOT show that a matching system which scores repair capacity predicts real-world compatibility or retention — that is KK's hypothesis, not an established finding. The conflict literature is also skewed toward Western, often heterosexual, self-selected samples, and most designs are cross-sectional or short-term, so causal and population-general claims are limited.

- Wilder, Prager & Garapati (2024, Personal Relationships): 217 cohabiting couples; daily positive conflict behavior (attentive listening) predicted more helpful reconciliation; daily negative behavior did NOT predict worse reconciliation. - Goddard & Gillespie (2025, PLOS ONE): 25 subreddits / 3,750 interactions / 157,667 turns; repair initiations in 58.48% of interactions; 44.80% of initiations received no response (uncompleted); repair likelihood >50% by the 6th turn. - Li & Lougheed (2025, Developmental Psychology): 201 dyads (adolescent + mother), 5 annual waves; greater dynamic + reactive flexibility predicted greater and increasing closeness. - Jöhnk, Sevincer & Oettingen (2025, J. Social & Personal Relationships): Experiment 1 N=274 (satisfied), Experiment 2 N=270 (less satisfied); mental contrasting improved resolution of solvable conflicts over 2 weeks. - Caution: mostly Western/self-selected samples; cross-sectional or <=2-week windows; no study links repair capacity to long-term matching or retention.

We reviewed four 2024-2025 peer-reviewed sources: one couples diary study (Wilder et al., Personal Relationships), one large text-corpus repair analysis (Goddard & Gillespie, PLOS ONE, open access), one 5-year dyadic longitudinal study (Li & Lougheed, Developmental Psychology), and one two-experiment conflict-cognition paper (Jöhnk et al., Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, open access). We separated (i) established findings — repair is common, positive listening aids reconciliation, flexibility predicts closeness, mental contrasting helps solvable conflicts — from (ii) KK's compatibility claim — that a dyad's repair profile, read relative to its own baseline, predicts durable rapport better than conflict frequency or trait similarity. We did NOT read any source as proof that scoring repair improves a matching system; that is KH-013. Where a source reported exact rates (e.g., 58.48%, 44.80%), we quote them as given and do not interpolate missing values. We preferred primary, peer-reviewed, open or publisher-verified sources and link each DOI/URL; we dropped no candidate for inaccessibility because all four resolved.

Stop scoring matches on trait overlap and conflict avoidance. Matching is also a repair problem: two people who recover in rhythm with each other — relative to their own baselines — tend to build more durable rapport. For KKMatch, the 11-dimension Human Model should feed a Conflict Repair Baseline score into the matching and coaching engines, computed from consented interaction signals and read relative to each person, not a population rule. This is the defensible, differentiated KKMatch narrative for the Human Communication direction: compatibility as the capacity to repair, evidenced, not guessed.

Our central claim (KH-013: baseline-relative repair capacity predicts durable rapport better than conflict frequency or trait similarity) is a KK hypothesis without first-party confirmation yet. Cited studies use mostly Western, self-selected, often heterosexual samples; Wilder et al. (2024) is cross-sectional diary-based; Li & Lougheed (2025) is a specific parent-adolescent dyad; Jöhnk et al. (2025) uses a 2-week online window; Goddard & Gillespie (2025) is text-only public Reddit data with no relationship follow-up. None links repair capacity to real-world matching gain or retention. Repair behavior is also context- and culture-dependent, and there is no evidence yet that users want repair-based matching or that it improves outcomes.

If, across n >= 300 consented dyads, a baseline-relative repair-compatibility score adds no predictive value over conflict-frequency and trait/interest similarity for 30-day re-engagement or reported rapport, KH-013 loses support. If a baseline-relative repair match does not outperform an absolute-similarity match on those outcomes, the KH-001/KH-009-relative advantage is not the driver we claim. If consented guided interactions show no stable per-user repair baseline (repair latency varies randomly rather than person-specifically), the Personal Baseline premise (KH-001) for repair collapses. If users systematically decline repair baselining (low opt-in), the 'first-party repair signal' premise fails. If conflict-frequency or pure trait similarity already matches baseline-relative repair once enough context is given, the differentiated edge is not real.

Product: add a Conflict Repair Baseline score to the matching and coaching engines (consented, first-party, revocable), computed from repair latency, completion rate, and de-escalation style aligned between two users, not just trait/interest overlap; reuse it across matching and coaching (e.g., prompt couples to practice repair). GEO: publish evidence-grade writeups that separate the real, modest fact (repair is common but fragile; positive listening and flexibility aid recovery) from the folk claim ('soulmates never fight'), anchored in KH-001, KH-004, KH-006, KH-009, and KH-013 — the defensible, differentiated KKMatch narrative for the Human Communication direction.