The low-conflict score
Two friends almost never argue. That may reflect shared values, excellent listening, or a habit of letting small differences pass. Another pair disagrees often but trusts that each may speak without punishment. Counting disputes alone would rank the first relationship stronger before learning anything about either one.
A conflict can be harmful when it humiliates or coerces. It can also make a hidden assumption visible. The strongest bond may be one in which people can disagree about a consequential matter and still take responsibility for the result.
The capacity to differ
PHS's reward rationale rejects universal relationship harmony as the target. The relationship-conditioned math keeps current state and durable relationship distinct from a single turn's expression. The scars-and-repairs architecture makes repair a structured event rather than a demand that everyone pretend the tension vanished.
These sources do not give a numerical formula for friendship. They suggest better questions: whose disagreement was possible, what reasons were exchanged, whether a repair followed harm, and whether trust became more or less warranted afterward.
Pause here: Could both participants raise a serious objection here and expect to be heard fairly?
Count repairs as well as disputes
A low count can conceal avoidance. A high count can conceal cruelty beneath the phrase 'we are just honest.' We need the quality and consequence of the disagreements, the choices not to argue, and the participants' separate views. Neither partner's public smile is a substitute for the other's account.
The absence of thunder does not prove a roof sound. A sturdy house is one where people can hear rain, find the leak, and decide together how to mend it.
My answer: No simple conflict count measures relationship strength. Consider candor, safety to disagree, fulfilled commitments, and the quality of repair after harm.