Unrelenting and at times persistent questioning 'chips away' at such foundations. At first such contradictions are rivalrous, dueling with each other. Such people stand on an ethical -moral platform, often referred to as 'preferences'. The counter-version allows for another reading to rival the Problem's versions of the very same events. One reading is juxtaposed to the other, with the effects of each brought face to face along with the 'purposes' of each as they play themselves out in real life.
Every opportunity is taken to set one version against the other.
The therapist is in general contradictious so that the counter-version preys upon subverts and hopefully ruptures the Problem's version by a rival claimant, another telling of events. Such contradictions are drawn as distinctively and poignantly eloquent as is possible. One is obliged to choose sides. To be a rival claimant, legitimacy, authenticity and credibility are required. Much cannot be accounted for here in my opinion.