Referring to the "oh" was just my little bit of SSM-board humor...
It was especially interesting to read that "it's never the animal's fault." That can translate into our R's as when the assumption of good will is in place (meaning that assumption that our partner does not INTEND harm to us and does not harbor any malice), then we can assume that our partner's actions come from a place in them that ultimately has a positive purpose, e.g., self-protection (of them), keeping the peace, avoiding conflict, etc.
We don't want to tweak this so far that I become responsible for my partner's actions or (as the other article said- obsessed with "fixing," but I can certainly learn more effective approaches. Then it's neither person's fault, but simply searching for what works.
The way that this approach is like the "oh" is that it suggests when the animal does not follow the training command, you simply withdraw engagement at that moment. Translating that into human to human behavior, it's like NOT jumping into the pit, NOT getting into a discussion of why and wherefore, NOT scolding them or telling them "how much that hurt." Just a blank stare and an "oh."
