Conclusion: Brocklehurst’s initial intervention (i.e., mindfulness) might have focused on evaluating a reduced confidence level (and other STIMULI) to regulate speech execution (using mindfulness). If this is true, I think one disadvantage of that approach is a high relapse risk: evaluating a reduced confidence level by mindfulness can break the stutter cycle, but it may not unlearn the underlying reliance on evaluating confidence to regulate speech execution. So. I believe a more robust strategy would have been to unlearn reliance on evaluating confidence (and other STIMULI) as the management for executing the speech plan. If he had truly unlearned that evaluative dependence, the chance of relapse after moving to a different environment would have been minimal in my humble opinion (respectfully). For example: when Paul moved to another country, thoughts like “I lack self-esteem/confidence” or “I need to increase regulation to execute speech” (for instance, because his wife seemed to speak more easily in the new language) might have strengthened the narrative that triggered the protection mechanism to excessively regulate speech execution, producing relapse. Whereas, if he had effectively stopped relying on evaluations of STIMULI (confidence, self-esteem, etc.) to excessively regulate speech execution, the relapse chance would have been minimal at best. This is just my own take on it, respectfully (constructive feedback). Your thoughts?