There are no special efforts invested when the Couch Dweller is observing the Doctor and this also applies to the Curious Subject recalling those observations/interactions in hindsight. The same level of attentiveness applies to any and every two-legger interaction that is experienced. The difference between studying the Doctor and studying any other two-legger (outside of the herd) is the ability to compare from week to week, and thus flesh out the findings. None of the findings are assumed to be correct, or even near so, however an incorrect perception can still grow with new observations.
Abnormalities during conversation can create numerous forms of reaction: word selection, tone, facial expression, body language, eye contact, rhythm etc. One form of display becomes more useful than the others, bluntly addressing the scope, severity and nature of the oddity as well as the reaction. Realistically it is likely that any/all responses and their associated significance are the products of eccentric error, fabricated during obsessive binges. Unintentional bullshit is bullshit nonetheless, and this is a serious possibility.
Dominance of presence, speech etc. (typically symbolic and ignored) swaps two-leggers during a conversation. The defining display was perceived to be body language exclusively.
Uncomfortably square shoulders tilt towards the midpoint, inviting exploration and civil discussion. (contrast- tense while leaning in) No signal is absent or presented incorrectly, but when the torso tensed there was a swift curling in the legs. The feet are abnormally tucked away underneath the seat, out of sight and still.
Interpretation: Tension is not enough of an indicator to assume that the oddity was even noticed, especially when the other signals did not falter from the normal progression. Simply adjusting feet can hardly indicate anything, however the speed, timing and precision can. Not balking, not spooking but a step back to reassess the situation.
