Really weird idea here - wouldn't think of this for anything but this journal. What would happen if there was a paragraph after this that pointed to key ideas (references) that shaped your thinking (a "want to explore more?" kind of pointer) or a "people who read this, resonated with this idea" kind of connection. The idea being to sprinkle connections that would support an ongoing dynamic journey vs. a static endpoint. This perhaps is a question for the editors ;)

I feel like this needs "In my (this) model, the basic cycle is..." as a mechanism to connect the "model" (title) and previous paragraphs on orientations/dispositions/practices/ways of being into a visual representation that summarizes these ideas.

Also, some of the ideas in the figure are "do this/consider this" and some are "questions to ask yourself" - when it takes on a "do this" quality I see it as a process, when it takes on a "question to ask" I see it as a practice or way of being. Would it make sense to modify this so that "do this" statements become "questions to ask yourself"? For example, "consider the ecology..." would become "where does this sit within the ecological system" or "what might be unintended consequences in the ecology?"

Perhaps push this emphasis - this seems to be a key part of the "coaching" idea - as not just something you do in this way...it's something you are.

Is there a way to refer to this image more intentionally? It doesn't have to have a figure number and title...but I feel it lacks a connection to the text.

This is where I started seeing connections to a model I use quite a bit - the collaborative inquiry model as described by Heron and Reason (1970s?). I share this in case you aren't aware of their work and I think you might enjoy it.

The first cue that pointed me to how you might be re-appropriating "coaching" and offering an alternative view. It was the "re-" as a visual signifier.

Perhaps "rather than only objectivist, etc."? For me, co-constructing becomes really interesting when objective knowing and subjective knowing collide - this is that integrative dialogue. So this was a confusing statement - which made me think that what you might have been trying to say is a mono-dialogue of only one way of seeing the world.

prescribed or rule-based process? am wondering if "process" is really "practice" - mostly because "process" takes me to a prescriptive space (do this first, second, third - it is separate from "me" and something I am told to do as some universal truth) and "practice" takes me to a way of thinking (and potentially being as an embodied practice).

My "jargon" or "dense" aspect of the experience Linda and Liz point to is best shown here (also "legacy system"). Because of how this sentence is written, I stumbled over this term - to continue reading, I chose to experience it as an object. I think that is something you wanted to happen. By making it an object - it comes under the microscope as something I have to ask myself about (what is this object? why is it important as a focus of inquiry?). If it was an adverb or adjective it is a signifier that I either agree with or not - or I might just skip right past it as "extra words I can skim over". Sneaky sneaky...if it is intentional - what are some things you can do to help the reader notice it is an object to engage with? A visual cue (italics?)? Offering rhetorical questions as place to ask yourself a question (why do we assert its necessity?)?

Picking up on the "together" and "we" language - am wondering of "co-coaching" is useful? Coaching is multi-directional vs. uni-directional? This seems to fit with the co-creating, co-constructing, co-xxxx qualities elsewhere in the paper. It may also provide a cue that you are offering an alternative view of coaching (which fits with re-appropriating and re-representing language elsewhere in paper).

There are qualities in each big idea presented that is distinguishing from a view on "coaching". Here, you say "distinct from" a instrumental-y or disconnected form of coaching. Is this a thread through the document that could be more explicit - this moving away from "that" model of coaching?

Am wondering if italics and bold font can be useful - as visual cues of ideas to chew on? What would happen if "habituated as part of our identity" was italicized (you read it differently - and it sets up the reification dynamic in the following sentence and links habit with identity).

There are moments where you use language in a way that seems to purposefully set up a disruption. For example, this first sentence is quite jarring - it's like walking into the middle of a movie with a complicated plot and wondering how you got to where you are. My sense is this fits with a critical theory genre of purposefully creating a disruption (to engage people in different ways). At other times (also a critical theory thing) you are re-appropriating language and offering different perspectives. For people who don't typically read in that space - it may limit them reading this or engaging in it (or being empowered by it). I'm wondering if you can be more explicit about your genre and style - a 'hey, i get this is dense and jargon-y, i'm doing it on purpose' kind of moment. I recognize this may go against your style - and am wondering if a version that might work for you is something a bit humorous at the beginning like "You may need to read this a few times, that's ok" (a Douglas Adams kind of intro of "don't worry you'll be ok"). A simple cue - not an explanation...that invites the reader into your journey.

So - I read through this once - and at various moments put in comments as I was reading and making sense of things. I scribbled some notes on a separate paper so that I would focus on reading it as a whole, first. I also had the annotations from others visible and sometimes would glance at those. Now, I'm coming back to those comments and putting them in. I say this because it seems important to share my process - experience the paper, experience other's comments, and write down ideas i hope add value in some way.

I agree with Linda in that there is an aesthetic quality to the piece - the paragraphs each have a key point and they flow almost like a poem. The nautilus shell metaphor also seems to hold particular meaning (spiral metaphor that has other larger qualities such as the golden ratio). I am wondering if this can be leveraged more - and seeing Linda's first comment changed the way I read this - which makes me think this might be valuable to other readers. What did it do, you ask? I took on a different mindset of watching the "flow of ideas" (unfolding), and that if one idea was a bit difficult to follow - to just stick with it like I would a poem because I know I'll hit something later that will give me the missing "aha". This also helped disrupt me from the way I might read a manuscript as a reviewer. So what else did Linda and Liz do for me - they helped me take a reader stance of "thought experiment", "reflective moment based on 10+ years of experience", a desire to influence change. They have known you for a long time - and they both commented on the value of being able to watch your journey and see this culmination. The typical reader won't have that to draw upon - so, is there something you can do that can set up the experience of reading this in a way that seems to be something you would want? This can be visual cues - pattern cues (starting each paragraph with an "in my model" repeater) - personal cues ("the 20 year journey of my model")...small, little things.

I appreciate the inclusion of "planetary" - thanks

would it be useful to point to resources here? I recognize it changes the style of the paper to put in references, but this would be less about establishing credibility and more about "hey, want to explore more - here are some good sources that fit with these ideas".

interesting use of "animations" - anime - as creation, bringing to life, animating.

Linking to the first sentence - "orientation" and "disposition" - the use of these words is pointing me to some intentionality around the piece, and saying something about coaching that speaks to a "way of being (together?)" as compared to an instrumental "get it done" kind of thing. I am realizing that what I'm picking up is a re-crafting of the idea of "coaching" - as an object that exists in our lexicon that carries ideas that either have become invisible (forgotten) or haven't moved to the center (core vs. fringe). This leads me to wonder - am I picking up on something you are trying to do...or am I creating my own meaning (and is this ok - meaning something you hope to achieve)? If the latter, I wonder if this can be something you speak to and be more explicit about - it could help change a dynamic from a knowledge distribution (sets of ideas written down to be read) to something else (a reflective paper for the reader). Something as a simple as an opener (or at end?) that says - "in this essay i share my model of coaching and hope it provides an opportunity for the reader to think about their own model." This is also helping me realize that the first sentence of the essay is really jarring - and my sense is that is intentional - setting up a disruption of a sort. It took me until this place to have this "click" in my head.

Tripping up on "process" again - I think it's me. In the design space, "process" has become something negative to me - something that is not questioned and assumed to be true for everyone (a universal process that tells you what to do). Am wondering if "experience" might be a way to capture both this sense of emergence (as a key principle) and that there are phases of participating, engaging, co-constructing, taking action (that are more intermingled and messy than what a process model tends to tell).

I noticed in the pdf that the essay comes with a "background" of a nautilus shell (or golden ratio). It seems important. Is this a part of the story that you hope to include in the journal? If so - how might that be done? It would be interesting to encourage something like this - supporting people using alternative means to message particular ideas.

Is this indicating a quote - another quote mark shows up in the following paragraph. Is this indicating something you are referencing (what?), a typo, a signifier of your spoken voice as separate from your written voice?