This aligns with one of the few good takeaways I had from some unavoidable "agile coaching" I was subject to. The thought was that you can look at a person as a set of concentric zones from inner to outer, inner being "core values", outer being "behaviour" with maybe stuff like "attitudes", "beliefs" and "principles" between.

The details aren't important so much as the idea that as you go from outer to inner you go from objective and observable to subjective and hidden, and that in any critique of a colleague you should as far as possible stick to the concrete and observable (as per the "late-to-standup" observation) and strictly avoid as far as possible the temptation to make statements about the more "inner" zones such as "I feel you have a casual attitude about punctuality" where endless and unresolvable recrimination and debate can ensue, often mistaken for real and valuable discussion by those doing the criticising, since reduced visibility in these zones can easily lead to facile assumptions and insufficient comprehension on the part of the critiquer.