PCAGIP case-consultation groups

1. Introduction

Version followed: standard face-to-face PCAGIP as defined by Murayama & Nakata (2012, Atarashii jirei kentōhō PCAGIP nyūmon, Sogensha), reconstructed from Japanese practice papers that cite it (the book itself is not drawn on [uncertain]); plus the published variants Reflexive PCAGIP (Oshie et al., 2016/2017), Online PCAGIP (Oshie et al., 2023) and Dream PCAGIP (Tsutsui, 2015; procedure known only at abstract level [uncertain]).

What it is. PCAGIP (Person-Centered Approach Group & Incident Process; pronounced pikajippu) is a case-consultation / case-conference method for helping professionals, not a therapy delivered to clients. It was proposed by Murayama Shōji (first published as a "new case study as group work" in 2010) and set out with Nakata Yukishige in the 2012 book; a sister volume, PCAGIP-hō no jissen (Murayama & Nakata, eds., Sogensha, Nov 2024), covers field applications and extensions. It combines a person-centred encounter-group climate with the "incident process" idea of starting from a very brief incident report and building the picture through members' questions. [source: Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2017; Miyamoto 2022; Sogensha 2024 book page] (The incident process is usually attributed to Paul and Faith Pigors [uncertain].)

Core idea of change. A case presenter brings only a few lines about a case. In a climate where the presenter is never criticised, members ask one question each in turn; answers are written on whiteboards so the case becomes visible as a shared whole. The members' pooled wisdom and experience produce new directions and concrete "hints" (not a single correct solution), and the presenter leaves with renewed energy and their own next step. Murayama & Nakata developed it because conventional case conferences often turned the presenter into a "defendant" (hikoku). The change targets are the presenter's understanding and morale, and secondarily the group's cohesion and shared ownership of the problem. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2021]

Where used. School counselling and teacher case meetings, clinical psychology training, career and industrial counselling, medical and community care staff, children's homes, juvenile classification homes, disaster-area school nurses, minority support. [source: Sogensha 2024 book page] In this guide, "client" means the case presenter; the clinician is the facilitator.

2. Framework

PCAGIP is a single-session group format (one case per session), repeatable as a series. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023]

Format and roles

Facilitator ("fac"): runs the session and holds the climate; in the reflexive variant sits beside the presenter. [source: Oshie et al. 2017]
Case presenter (jirei teikyōsha): one per session, brings the case.
Recorders: usually two, writing questions/answers on two whiteboards; three recommended online. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023]
Members: about eight; everyone seated in a circle able to see the boards. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022]
Large groups: fishbowl (kingyobachi): an inner "goldfish" group (presenter, fac, members) and an outer ring that watches and speaks when the fac invites. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023]
Materials: a case summary of about five lines (one B5 sheet) or about 200 Japanese characters, copied for everyone. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2017]
Duration: reported sessions ran about 60–75 min; one author (Fujinaka, 2022, cited by Miyamoto) considers about 120 min necessary. No single fixed time is stated in the sources [uncertain].

Phases (standard version)

Phase	Goal	Move on when
0. Preparation	Choose case (often invited from participants and selected by organisers), presenter writes the brief summary, assign recorders	Summary ready and copied
1. Opening and ground rules	Safe, free climate; rules stated and confirmed; brief self-introductions if needed	Rules acknowledged
2. Presenter's statement	Presenter reads the summary and says why they bring it, what troubles them, what they want	Purpose is clear to all
3. Question rounds (understanding the case)	First round: each member asks one question in turn; recorders write answers; fac reads back/summarises after each round; 2–3 rounds, then nominated or free questions	Questions are exhausted and a shared picture of facts and situation is on the boards
4. Hints / support ideas	Members offer possible directions and concrete hints; the group discusses them; aim is hints, not a verdict	Presenter has what they need (fac checks with them)
5. Closing	Presenter's impressions; members' and recorders' comments; thanks (and applause)	Session ends

[source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023]. Note: the sources differ on whether phase 4 is a distinct step. Miyamoto describes a two-step structure (case understanding, then support consideration); the Kawasaki school report goes straight from reviewing the whiteboard to impressions; Oshie et al. (2021) report that the standard method asks members for questions rather than opinions [uncertain about how Murayama & Nakata label phase 4].

Criteria for moving between phases. The facilitator moves from questions to synthesis when questions run dry; ending is decided by checking with the presenter whether they are ready to finish. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023]

3. Guiding principles

Never criticise the presenter (ground rule, stated as "absolutely"). Practical meaning: rephrase or stop any question carrying blame ("why didn't you..."). [source: Oshie et al. 2017, 2021, 2023; Kawasaki report; Aichi Kyowa HS 2016]
The presenter is not a defendant. Practical meaning: success is the presenter leaving encouraged (genki ni naru), not exposed. [source: Miyamoto 2022, citing Murayama & Nakata 2012]
No note-taking. Practical meaning: attention stays on the people in the room; the boards are the only record. [source: Oshie et al. 2017; Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022]
One question per person, in turn. Practical meaning: equalises voice and stops experienced or senior members dominating. [source: Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2021, 2023]
Everyone says something (zen'in hitokoto). Practical meaning: the first round reaches every member. [source: Miyamoto 2022]
Freedom to pass. Practical meaning: when nominating, say a pass is fine. [source: Oshie et al. 2023]
Draw out the strength of members and presenter. Practical meaning: the facilitator trusts the group's pooled experience rather than acting as expert. [source: Oshie et al. 2017, 2021; Miyamoto 2022]
Hints, not solutions. Practical meaning: no voting or final ruling; the presenter picks what fits. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Kawasaki report]
Visualise the case. Practical meaning: write answers on the boards so the whole picture emerges and the presenter can see it from outside. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Kawasaki report]
Minimal preparation. Practical meaning: a few lines, not a long dossier, so presenting is low-burden and the picture is built together. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Kawasaki report]
Person-centred climate (acceptance, empathic understanding; treated as encounter-group-like). Practical meaning: the facilitator attends to the presenter's experience, not only the case facts. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023]
Shift from "doing" to "being" (Nakayama 2021, quoted by Miyamoto). Practical meaning: being heard by the group can matter as much as the advice. [source: Miyamoto 2022]
Shared ownership. Practical meaning: the presenter should not carry the problem alone after the session. [source: Aichi Kyowa HS 2016; Miyamoto 2022 abstract]
Murayama's own facilitator-guidance list (fashiritētā no kokoroe) in the 2012 book is not given in the sources [uncertain].

4. Intervention inventory

PCAGIP's "interventions" are the facilitator's procedural moves in a consultation group. Items 4.1–4.11 are the standard method; 4.12–4.16 are named variants. Sources for standard steps: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2017, 2021, 2023. All example wording is illustrative unless quoted.

4.1 Case selection and the brief case summary

Purpose / when: before every session; keeps preparation light and lets the group build the picture through questions.
Steps: (1) Invite cases from participants in advance; organisers pick one (Oshie et al. 2023). (2) Ask the presenter to write about five lines (one B5 sheet; about 200 Japanese characters): basic facts, what is troubling them, what they hope for. (3) Disguise identifying details. (4) Copy for everyone; distribute at the start. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2017] Collecting the copies at the end is a sensible confidentiality step [synthesis; not confirmed].
Example language (illustrative): "Just a few lines is enough: who the person is, what's stuck, and what you'd like from the group. We'll fill in the rest by asking you."
Watch for: presenters who send a long report (shorten it with them; long material invites critique of what was done); identifiable details.

4.2 Roles and room set-up

Purpose / when: at the start; makes the process visible and gives everyone a defined job.
Steps: (1) Assign facilitator, presenter, two recorders, about eight members. (2) Arrange chairs in a circle so everyone can see the two whiteboards. (3) Seat the presenter where they can see the boards and the facilitator easily (in the reflexive variant the fac sits beside the presenter). (4) With more people, set up the fishbowl (4.11). [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2017]
Example language (illustrative): "A and B, would you be our recorders today: one board each, writing each question and the answer in short phrases?"
Watch for: recorders unsure what to write. Agreeing in advance who records which rounds is a [synthesis] fix.

4.3 Opening and ground rules

Purpose / when: first minutes; sets a safe, free climate in which varied views can come out.
Steps: (1) Welcome; brief self-introductions if members don't know each other (Oshie et al. 2023). (2) State and confirm the rules: do not criticise the presenter; no note-taking; one question per person, in turn. (3) Say that passing is allowed. (4) Briefly say the aim: hints and new directions for the presenter, not a verdict. [source: Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2017, 2023; Miyamoto 2022]
Example language (illustrative): "Two rules today. First, nobody criticises our presenter; they've been brave enough to bring this. Second, please put pens down. The boards will hold the record. We'll go round asking one question each; if nothing comes, just say pass."
Watch for: members looking for their notebooks; nervous laughter from the presenter. Ask for a quick visible agreement (nods) before moving on [synthesis].

4.4 Presenter's opening statement

Purpose / when: after the rules; anchors the session in what the presenter needs.
Steps: (1) Presenter reads the summary aloud. (2) They say briefly why they chose this case, what is troubling them and what they want. (3) The facilitator reflects the request back and asks the recorders to write it at the top of a board. [source: Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2017; writing the request on the board is [synthesis]]
Example language (illustrative): "So what you'd most like is some ideas about how to start talking with the parents again. Have I got that right?"
Watch for: a vague request ("anything helps"). Gently ask what would make the session worthwhile [synthesis].

4.5 First question round (everyone, one question each, in turn)

Purpose / when: core of the case-understanding phase; spreads participation and builds the picture from many angles.
Steps: (1) The facilitator sets the order (e.g. clockwise). (2) Each member asks one question; the presenter answers. (3) Questions only: no opinions or advice yet. (4) Recorders write each answer. (5) The facilitator keeps turns short and stops a second question. Oshie and colleagues call this whole-group first round the "four-ball method" (yonkyū hōshiki); the origin of the name is not explained in the sources [uncertain]. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2017, 2021, 2023]
Example language (illustrative): "Let's start with you, C, and go round to the left. One question each." / to a member starting a second question: "Let's hold that one for the next round."
Watch for: disguised criticism ("Did you ever think of...?") and speeches. Reframe into a neutral information question (4.10 / section 5). Signs it is working: questions spread out across family, school, the child's strengths and the presenter's feelings, and the boards fill with new information.

4.6 Whiteboard recording (visualisation)

Purpose / when: throughout the question rounds; makes the case visible as a whole and replaces private notes.
Steps: (1) Two recorders write the question and answer in short phrases, numbered or grouped by speaker or round. (2) Use the second board when the first fills. (3) The facilitator periodically draws attention to the boards. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2023] Drawing a simple relationship map (genogram, school staff) on a board is a common practitioner addition [synthesis].
Watch for: recorders filtering or interpreting. Ask them to write the presenter's words. Signs it is working: the presenter starts looking at the boards and noticing links ("I hadn't seen that the problems started after...").

4.7 Facilitator read-back and summary after each round

Purpose / when: at the end of each round; consolidates what is known and shows gaps.
Steps: (1) Read the board record aloud or summarise it. (2) Name themes or gaps that have emerged, without interpreting them for the presenter. (3) Ask the presenter how it feels to see it laid out. (4) When questions are exhausted, organise the shared facts and the situation. [source: Oshie et al. 2023; Miyamoto 2022]
Example language (illustrative): "Looking at both boards: we know a lot about home now, and less about how he is with friends. How is it for you to see it all up there?"
Watch for: turning the summary into your own expert formulation. Keep it descriptive.

4.8 Further rounds: second and third rounds, nominated and free questions

Purpose / when: after the first round; deepens the areas the boards show are thin.
Steps: (1) Run a second (and if useful third) round in the same order. (2) Then nominate specific members ("pass is OK"), including fishbowl observers. (3) Then open an unordered free-question round. [source: Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2023]
Example language (illustrative): "D, you've worked with this age group a lot. Is there anything you'd want to ask? Passing is fine."
Watch for: fatigue in the presenter; repetitive questions. Move on when new information stops appearing.

4.9 Hints and support-ideas phase

Purpose / when: once the picture is shared; gives the presenter options.
Steps: (1) Invite members to offer possible directions or concrete ideas, framed as hints. (2) Discuss each briefly; the presenter responds. (3) The facilitator summarises the range of ideas and asks the presenter which ones resonate. (4) Do not push for consensus. [source: Miyamoto 2022; definition of "hints" in Kawasaki report; Oshie et al. 2017] The extent of an explicit advice phase in Murayama & Nakata's own version is [uncertain] (see section 2).
Example language (illustrative): "Now that we can see the whole picture, what small ideas come to mind, things our presenter might try or look at? Offer them as possibilities."
Watch for: members piling on advice (the presenter goes quiet or defends). Slow it down and let the presenter respond to each one. Signs it is working: the presenter starts generating their own ideas.

4.10 Checking the ending and closing round

Purpose / when: final 10 minutes or so; lets the presenter decide the session is complete and makes the experience shared.
Steps: (1) Ask the presenter whether there is anything more they want to ask or hear, and whether it is all right to end. (2) Presenter gives impressions. (3) Invite members, fishbowl observers and recorders to share impressions (not new advice). (4) Thank the presenter, recorders and members; applause. [source: Oshie et al. 2023; Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022]
Example language (illustrative): "Before we close, is there anything you still want from the group? ... How has this been for you?"
Watch for: members using the impression round to add advice; the presenter looking deflated. Thank them specifically for what they brought [synthesis].

4.11 Fishbowl format for large groups

Purpose / when: when participants exceed a workable circle (e.g. training events).
Steps: (1) Inner group: presenter, facilitator, recorders, about eight members. (2) Outer ring watches silently. (3) The facilitator invites outer-ring comments or questions at defined points (e.g. after a round, or in closing). [source: Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2021, 2023]
Example language (illustrative): "Those of you in the outer circle: is there a question you've been holding that the inner group hasn't asked?"
Watch for: outer-ring members feeling like spectators. Oshie et al. drop the fishbowl because inner and outer groups get unequal chances to speak. Give them a guaranteed slot.

4.12 Reflexive PCAGIP: overall sequence (Oshie et al., 2016/2017)

Purpose / when: when the presenter, not just the case, needs to be at the centre, e.g. a distressed or overwhelmed presenter, trainees, or groups where question overload has been a problem. It was developed to address five problems: ground rules can suppress speech; inner and outer fishbowl groups get unequal chances to speak; members cannot think of a question; members already know the case; and the presenter feels interrogated. [source: Oshie et al. 2017, 2021]
Steps: (1) The presenter writes about 200 characters in advance; copies go to all. (2) The fac states and confirms two rules: no notes, no criticism of the presenter. (3) The presenter reads the case aloud and says what they hope for. (4) Group part 1: 5–7 members each ask one question, in no fixed order; questions only. (5) PCS part: one-to-one person-centred supervision between fac and presenter while others listen silently (4.13). (6) Group part 2: once fac and presenter agree the presenter feels understood, 5–7 members each speak once, and may ask questions, comment or advise. The fac summarises long turns and prompts quiet members. The presenter responds to each speaker before the next speaks. (7) PCS part again, to help the presenter take in the input and find their own direction; the fac may add thoughts, offered tentatively as questions. (8) Repeat 6–7 as needed; always end on a PCS part; then, if time allows, everyone shares impressions (no questions or advice). One circle, everyone sees the board, no fishbowl. Reported: 15 people, about 75 min; 6 people, 71 min. [source: Oshie et al. 2017, 2021]
Example language (illustrative): to members after a burst of input: "Let's pause there so our presenter can respond before the next person."
Watch for / working: Oshie et al. (2021) rated the presenter's Experiencing Scale level and found it tended to rise after each PCS part (one session, small sample). In practice, look for the presenter shifting from reporting facts to speaking from their own felt sense of the case.

4.13 Person-centred supervision (PCS) part within Reflexive PCAGIP

Purpose / when: between group parts; helps the presenter contact and carry forward their own experiencing of the case, and digest what the group gave.
Steps: (1) The fac turns to the presenter; others listen silently. (2) Listen in a person-centred way: reflect the presenter's feelings and meanings, and don't add advice. (3) Help them notice what stood out from the group input and what it touches in them. (4) In later PCS parts the fac may add their own view, framed as a question and checked. (5) End the PCS part when both agree the presenter feels understood. [source: Oshie et al. 2017, 2021]
Example language (illustrative): "Of everything that's been said, what's staying with you right now?" / "I'm wondering whether ... might fit, though only you'd know. Does that land at all?"
Watch for: the PCS turning into a private consultation that excludes the group; members becoming restless. Keep it brief and return to the group [synthesis].

4.14 Online PCAGIP (Oshie et al., 2023)

Purpose / when: when members cannot meet in person; keeps the face-to-face flow (Murayama 2012) with platform substitutions.
Steps: (1) Video platform (they used Webex); mics muted, unmuted only to speak. (2) A shared online document replaces seat order: list the speaking order in it in advance. (3) The same document replaces the whiteboards: three recorders write in it; share it so all can view. (4) Pre-write the ground rules in the document. (5) Run brief self-introductions, then the first round in the listed order. The fac reads the record back, then an extra round (they used a second "four-ball" round), nominated questions ("pass is OK"), a free round, checking with the presenter about ending, and closing (presenter's impressions, others and recorders invited, thanks and applause). (6) Rehearse in advance; agree a back-up channel (chat) for connection failure; skip a member whose audio drops and return later. [source: Oshie et al. 2023]
Example language (illustrative): "If your sound drops, type in the chat and we'll come back to you after the next person."
Watch for: the presenter feeling they are "broadcasting one-way"; members feeling they must say something polished when they unmute; difficulty viewing the video and the document together; fatigue; recorders unable to coordinate. The authors note it may "no longer be PCAGIP itself" because bodily presence is missing. [source: Oshie et al. 2023]

4.15 Dream PCAGIP (PCAGIP Dreamwork; Tsutsui, 2015)

What it is (verified): a small-group exercise developed by Tsutsui Yūsuke (Kansai University graduate school, in the Focusing tradition associated with Ikemi Akira). A dream provider brings a dream instead of a case, and the group helps the dreamer find the dream's meaning for themselves. It adapts the PCAGIP method and draws on Focusing Dreamwork (Gendlin's body-based approach to dreams [uncertain]). Tsutsui notes that PCAGIP had so far been used for real-life cases and that dreams had not been reported as its subject. The 2015 paper gives an overview and procedure, one worked example, and ways of handling dreams in groups. A later chapter (Tsutsui, in Murayama & Nakata 2024) applies it in "self-awareness communities". [source: Tsutsui 2015 repository record; Sogensha 2024 book page]
Process findings (verified): in an 8-member session, Ushiroyama, Ikemi and colleagues (2018) identified 13 moments when the dreamer's experiencing deepened and grouped the facilitating interactions into six patterns. They describe four processes: refining the dream; extending and reconstructing it; context shifts through members' re-experiencing (tsuitaiken: members imaginatively living the dream from inside) and crossing (kōsa, Gendlin's term, with members' own experience); and meaning created by crossing the dream with the dreamer's waking life. In their example a horror nightmare became a friendship story. [source: Ushiroyama et al. 2018 repository record]
Steps: Tsutsui's step-by-step procedure was not obtained (full text unreachable) [uncertain]. The following is an adaptation inferred from standard PCAGIP and the abstracts, marked [synthesis]; check it against Tsutsui (2015) before use. (1) The dreamer writes the dream briefly and reads it aloud. (2) Ground rules: no interpreting at or for the dreamer, no criticism, no notes; the dreamer may decline any question. (3) Members ask one question each in turn about dream details and the dreamer's felt sense of them. Recorders write the dream elements and the dreamer's answers. (4) Members say how the dream feels when they imagine being in it, offered as their own experience. (5) The dreamer checks each offering against their bodily sense and keeps only what resonates. (6) Close with the dreamer's impressions.
Example language (illustrative): "When I imagine standing in that corridor, I feel ... That's mine, though. Does any of it touch your sense of the dream?"
Watch for: members imposing interpretations; dreamer over-exposure in front of colleagues; trauma-related nightmares (see 5). Working: the dreamer's language becomes fresher and more felt, and a new meaning "clicks" for them [synthesis, consistent with the 2018 findings].

4.16 Other named extensions (titles only)

The 2024 volume lists Focusing-oriented PCAGIP (Horio Naomi), multi-session PCAGIP for large groups (Nakajima Mayu), and field adaptations, e.g. children's homes, juvenile classification homes, disaster-area school nurses, career counselling. Their procedures are not drawn on [uncertain]; do not run them from this guide. [source: Sogensha 2024 book page]

5. Handling problems

Problems reported in the sources

Uneven airtime / a member dominates (e.g. a teacher who taught the child talks at length and forgets the one-question rule). Response: restate the rule warmly at that moment; keep strict turn order; set timing so everyone can speak. [source: Kawasaki report] Offer the dominant member a later slot "to add anything still missing" [synthesis].
"No conclusion": members or presenter frustrated at not getting a concrete plan. Response: name at the outset that the aim is hints, not a solution. Allow more time. Stay close to the presenter so they reach their own understanding. In closing, ask the presenter to name one next step they will take. [source: Miyamoto 2022; closing next-step question is [synthesis]]
Presenter overwhelmed or feels interrogated by questions. Response: slow down; summarise; let them respond to each item; switch to the reflexive format with PCS parts (4.12–4.13). [source: Miyamoto 2022; Oshie et al. 2017, 2021]
Ground rules suppress spontaneity; members can't think of a question. Response: make passing explicitly fine; after the questions-only round, open a round where comments are allowed (reflexive); follow with nominated then free rounds. [source: Oshie et al. 2021, 2023]
Fishbowl inequality (outer ring has little voice). Response: guarantee outer-ring slots, or seat everyone in one circle. [source: Oshie et al. 2021, 2023]
Members already know the case or child (common in schools), so information is uneven. Oshie et al. name this but give no remedy [source: Oshie et al. 2021]. Response: treat members' prior knowledge as information to put on the board, not as a verdict. Ask those with history to answer the presenter's questions only when invited [synthesis].
Not enough time. Response: agree a protected slot in advance (one author argues for about 120 min); build the meeting into the school or service calendar. [source: Miyamoto 2022; Kawasaki report]
Facilitator skill and availability. Response: train facilitators; establish a structure so the meeting reliably happens. [source: Kawasaki report; Miyamoto 2022]
Incomplete information and privacy concerns. Response: disguise details in the summary; no notes; [synthesis] collect copies at the end and state confidentiality limits at the start.
Online-specific: one-way feeling, pressure to sound polished when unmuting, audio dropouts, fatigue. Response: rehearsal; three recorders; pre-written order and rules in the shared document; chat as back-up channel; explicitly protect the freedom to speak or pass. [source: Oshie et al. 2023]

Problems not addressed in the sources (all [synthesis])

Disguised criticism ("Why didn't you just...?", "Didn't the policy require...?"). Intercept gently and reframe as information-seeking (illustrative): "Let me turn that into a question about the situation: what's happened when calls home have been made?" If it repeats, restate the no-criticism rule to the whole group, not to the individual.
Presenter shame, tears or defensiveness. Pause the round, reflect their feeling, ask what they need (a break, a slower pace, fewer questions), and move to a PCS-style exchange. Never push for disclosure of the presenter's personal history; this is consultation, not therapy for the presenter.
Hierarchy in the room (head teacher, supervisor or manager present). Agree beforehand that senior staff take a member role under the same rules. Consider placing them later in the order so juniors aren't anchored by them.
Safeguarding or risk content surfaces (abuse, suicide risk in the case). PCAGIP is not a decision forum for statutory duties. Note the issue, finish the group process respectfully, then deal with it through the service's safeguarding or risk procedure immediately after, with the appropriate lead, following current standard risk-assessment practice.
Ethical concern about the presenter's practice. Do not let it become group criticism. The facilitator raises it privately afterwards and refers it to supervision or line management as required.
"Rupture" with the facilitator (presenter feels steered or unheard). Acknowledge openly, ask what was missed, and return the floor to them. In the closing round, invite feedback on the process itself.
Advice avalanche in the hints phase. Cap it at one idea per member per round and ask the presenter to say which ones they want to hear more about.
Groupthink toward one explanation. Ask the round explicitly for a different angle ("What might we be missing?") and point to the thin areas on the boards.
Recorders editorialising. Reread their lines with the presenter ("Is that what you said?") and correct them on the board.
Dream PCAGIP risks. Screen out dreams tied to recent trauma or flashback-like nightmares in training-group settings. Let the dreamer choose how much to share and stop at any time. Keep interpretations as members' own experience ("if it were my dream..."), never statements about the dreamer. Make sure the dreamer has follow-up support if strong material emerges.

Sources

Sources:

Full texts attempted but unreachable (repository redirect failed): Tsutsui (2015) PDF; Ushiroyama et al. (2018) PDF; Kansai University 2020 PCAGIP paper; Fukuoka University repository paper. CiNii record returned empty.