Does the book conflate recovery and resilience? Genuinely asking.

Not a conflation, I think — the book argues recovery quality is the observable signature of resilience capacity. Resilience itself is latent and hard to measure directly; recovery is the artifact you can actually score. Worth a longer conversation though, because I think the chapter would benefit from being more explicit about the latent-vs-observable distinction.

Quinn, you're right that the academic literature splits them. The book's contribution is in deciding the measurement target is the recovery trace, not the underlying capacity. That's defensible but it's a choice worth flagging. I'd be interested in co-writing something that maps the book's framing onto the existing literature explicitly.

ER perspective: in practice the two are inseparable. The clinicians who absorb the setback well and the clinicians who recover well are the same people, with the same training patterns. I'm not sure the academic split survives contact with actual high-stakes domains.