The question this prompts for me, however is…
Is it all subjective and referential?

I’m not just trying to ask a tree-falling-in-the-forest question here. I’ve been thinking that the more clients are trusting my analysis, insights and recommendations, the more I wonder if there is any fundamental truth to what I am telling them, and how I might know this.

What’s the anthropological view of this issues? Is it indeed all subjective — we read the analysis and judge the quality of it based on our own knowledge. (subjective analysis and subjective evaluation).

Simply by talking to the dog in this rather particular manner seemed to me like a case of anthropomorphism. I also got the impression that had there been no person there but simply a dog tied to a post with no one else around she would have just (best case) petted the dog and said nothing.

I agree that the last part (for the benefit of the animal or herself but the owner who is able to deduce…) is a bit of a strech, especially as the wording indicates it to be a concious thought. However, what I tried to convey is how automatic (subconcious?) the communication is and how initila perception might influence attitudes that shape further communication by providing seemingly superfluous information.

There’s also a simpler answer: I over did it

That’s quite an extraordinary claim with nothing, as far as I can see, to back it up.