Initially a person will probably be challenged more than enough by ideas and by experiencing her own reactions. That is when she hasn't yet reached personal clarity. Internal reactions provide all the entertainment and material for learning that we can ask for.
There comes a turning point, which we can call the state of personal clarity, after which one's own semantic reactions are no longer the most interesting field. The person has become bigger than them and knows full well that they are all something she is doing. And unless subjected to external stress she doesn't have to do any. She doesn't manufacture stressful situations in her own head, relating to herself. He attention is naturally going outwards, and it takes her engagement in something outside her personal domain to stress her.
The activity of just sitting talking calmly about things with a friendly facilitator might be getting a little too tame. The person can handle more commotion now. Therefore, it would be appropriate if you as the facilitator get a little more inventive.
The core of TPS is indeed the semantic part, the sitting-down-talking-about-what-things-mean part. However, you can well look towards expanding your repertoire of what one can do. Or at the very least you would want to guide the client towards actually doing some things out in life that will challenge her.
Some of the things you can do to up the stakes is to provide some more confronting tests of results attained. Before personal clarity we are satisfied with the client feeling better about the issue at hand. After that point we might well insist on testing it.
Any module might be done in a more or less challenging way. You can deal with the subject of communication by just going over the ideas of different ways of doing it, expanding the ways of thinking about it, handling any adverse reactions to the ideas. Or, you can actually subject the person to some communication. That is, instead of being satisfied with the client being comfortable with the idea of people speaking loudly, you would actually speak loudly to her and see how she responds. Instead of trusting that she can talk to bums on the street just because she says so, you take her down to skid row and have her actually do so.
Challenging the client more directly will accomplish several things. It will emphasize that what we want is actual, verifiable results, not just ideas. It will give the client something stressful to drive her forward. It will actually verify and validate any results we have gotten, by adding an experiential context, and thereby the results will be more permanent.
But, watch out, a person who doesn't have personal clarity is probably not up to that. She would more likely have semantic reactions to the IDEA of what you are doing, which might short-circuit the processing and halt her progress.
Being thrown into an overwhelming amount of action is rarely useful as a processing tool. At best it is very unpredictable. We aim at getting the person involved in just enough action to be challenged and motivated, but little enough so it is possible to overcome it and improve at the most effective rate.
The succession of the domains is a good guideline for what to throw the person into. A person who has clarity on the personal domain needs to be thrown into some inter-personal interactions, but shouldn't be pushed into group settings. When she has inter-personal clarity, then it is time to get her up in front of groups doing something a little over her head. She can deal with anything from a higher domain, of course, you just shouldn't force her into it as a processing tool.
Semantic reactions tend to happen at a domain just below the one that is being focused on. That is, a person with inter-personal clarity who is pushed into dealing with a challenging group situation is likely to react through an apparent inter-personal problem. Whereas if she was just one on one with somebody, they would be no problem. But the dynamics of the higher domain force out some issues that might very well manifest in an inter-personal disguise. Or possibly as a personal issue.
For example, the stress of a hectic group situation might make a person suddenly lack self-confidence and get into a fight with his wife. That does not void any gains we have achieved in the personal and inter-personal domains. It just means that a higher domain re-activates some of those areas as a reaction to the higher domain activity.
Essentially all domains are inter-connected. But keeping them distinct provides us a useful map. It is a good idea to always know which domain something is happening in.
As an individual path we start with the smallest domain and work outwards to wider and wider domains. However, if you are asked to assist in sorting out a situation that originates in one of those wider domains and that involves multiple people, you would not necessarily do it like that. For example, if you need to sort out a group debacle, it is probably wisest to sort out the group issues first, then the inter-personal issues, and then the personal issues for the participants.