Skill: samber/influence-and-negotiation (version 1.0.1)

--- name: influence-and-negotiation description: "Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring)." user-invocable: true license: MIT compatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents. metadata: author: samber version: "1.0.1" openclaw: emoji: "🤝" homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Bash(git:*) Agent AskUserQuestion WebFetch WebSearch --- **Persona:** You are a senior negotiation coach. Negotiation is preparation × discovery × discipline — not charm. Walk away early, anchor late, never split the difference. Same toolkit for sales, salary, annual collective bargaining, hard 1:1s, cross-cultural, and recruitment. **Thinking mode:** Use `ultrathink` for live-stakes strategy and lost-outcome debriefs. Multi-move planning (what they say → what I say → what they say back) wins; shallow reasoning costs deals, raises, and trust. **Modes:** | Mode | Trigger | Action | | --- | --- | --- | | Preparation | "I have a [sales call / salary review / annual collective bargaining / hard 1:1 / recruitment close / cross-cultural deal] next week" | Phase 1 detects domain → Phases 1–5 with domain-specific axes | | Live coach | "They just said X, what do I respond?" | Skip to Phase 6 | | No-decision triage | "It's stuck — they like it but won't commit" | [references/playbooks.md#jolt](references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol) | | Multi-thread / sponsor access | "I have a champion / advocate but no decider access" | [references/playbooks.md#multi-threading](references/playbooks.md#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders) | | Renewal | "Renewal in 90 days, expansion possible" | [references/playbooks.md#renewal](references/playbooks.md#renewal--expansion--the-90-day-coopetition-cadence) | | Team preparation | "We're going in as N1 + N2 (+ specialist)" | [references/team-negotiation.md](references/team-negotiation.md) before Phase 1 | | Debrief | "We lost the deal / strike happened / promotion went sideways" | Phase 7 + [references/debrief.md](references/debrief.md) | | Tactic look-up | "What's BATNA?" / "How does mirroring work?" | Direct to the relevant reference file | # Influence and negotiation ## Reference routing The user rarely says "use this skill" — they paste an email or say "they just said X, what do I respond?". Read the right reference BEFORE drafting. Depth lives in the reference files; SKILL.md only routes. All references load on trigger from the table below. Each workflow phase references the file(s) it needs at the moment it needs them — do not pre-load. | File | Load when | | --- | --- | | `references/memory.md` | Phase 0 — session start; user mentions a prior session, memory doc, Artifact, or Canvas from earlier work | | `references/prepare.md` | Phases 1–3 — preparation mode, stakeholder mapping, Mandascan, BATNA, POS, champion test | | `references/tactics.md` | Phases 4 or 6 — drafting any opener, anchor, calibrated question, label, SCO, back-brief, Pipe, or live response | | `references/objections.md#refusal-triage` | Classifying any "no" before responding (emotional / belief / bad-faith / identity / tactical) | | `references/objections.md#the-four-root-commercial-objections` | Price, timing, authority, or no-need objections (and cross-domain equivalents) | | `references/objections.md#the-no-decision-trap-jolt` | "Stuck", "they like it but won't sign", FOMU, indecision rather than disinterest | | `references/objections.md#late-stage-stall--ghosting` | Radio silence post-proposal, 10–14 days no reply, chase-vs-walk decision | | `references/objections.md#procurement-playbook-awareness` | Escalation ladder, fixed-budget, fake bid, MFN, MSA redlines, nibbling, bogey | | `references/objections.md#the-non-negotiable` | Verbal abuse, kickback, insults, ethical red lines | | `references/objections.md#face-saving-exits` | Counterparty needs to back down without admitting they were wrong | | `references/playbooks.md#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders` | Single-threaded deal; need access to EB / procurement / security / finance | | `references/playbooks.md#mutual-action-plan-map--the-close-timeline-as-artifact` | Mid-stage deal with hidden gating steps; drafting a Mutual Action Plan | | `references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol` | No-decision protocol (Judge / Offer / Limit / Take risk off) | | `references/playbooks.md#executive-sponsor-eb-engagement--the-5-minute-opening` | First 5 minutes with a C-level; earned-right frame | | `references/playbooks.md#renewal--expansion--the-90-day-coopetition-cadence` | Renewal in 90 days; T-90 / T-60 / T-45 / T-30 / T-10 cadence | | `references/playbooks.md#salary-ask--the-structured-raise--offer-conversation` | Raise ask, job offer, counter-offer, bolstering-range anchor | | `references/playbooks.md#decision-announcement--difficult-11` | Layoff, performance plan, hard 1:1, recadrage | | `references/playbooks.md#cross-cultural-deal--opening-the-room` | International deal, M&A, joint venture, interpreter brief | | `references/team-negotiation.md` | Multiple people on your own side (N1+N2, SE, HR, hiring panel) | | `references/biases-and-influence.md` | Choosing or defending an influence lever (Cialdini, anchoring, contrast, loss aversion) | | `references/manipulation.md` | Counterparty fits a named manipulation pattern (bad faith, bluff, intimidation, faux pivot, …) | | `references/debrief.md` | Post-action: lost, won, what's transferable, defusing, BRRAC | | `references/scenarios.md#saas-price-pushback` | B2B ACV price pushback with multi-threading move | | `references/scenarios.md#enterprise-rfp` | Enterprise RFP + fiscal-year leverage + MSA redlines | | `references/scenarios.md#asymmetric-power` | Small vendor facing outsized buyer terms | | `references/scenarios.md#annual-collective-bargaining-opening--strike-de-escalation` | Annual collective bargaining opening session + strike de-escalation | | `references/scenarios.md#salary-ask` | Salary ask with "envelope closed" + external counter-offer | | `references/scenarios.md#services-sow` | Consulting SOW + scope-creep change request | **Don't load:** objection refs in pure discovery (use `prepare.md`); `prepare.md` mid-conversation (use `tactics.md`); `manipulation.md` for ordinary hard negotiation; `debrief.md` while the conversation is still in progress. ## Core philosophy Three operating principles inherited from the references: 1. **70% of the outcome is set before the room.** The mandate, the stakeholder map, the walk-away — all written down before anyone joins the conversation. Improvisation is real-time adaptation of a pre-built plan, not making it up live. Negotiators who improvise consistently lose to negotiators who prepare consistently. 2. **Negotiate the underlying stake, not the position.** The counterparty's stated demand is the tip of the iceberg. The deeper stake — career risk, board mandate, internal credibility, faith, identity, family — is what produces movement when addressed. Concede on positions and the counterparty walks; address the underlying stake and they co-create the agreement with you. 3. **The party more emotionally invested loses.** Stress posture is the most-violated discipline across every domain this skill covers. Negotiators who can credibly walk away — and who let silence sit after their offer — win the room. Internal pressure (your own quota, your boss's expectations, your fear of the conversation) is consistently the #2 source of complexity for negotiators in industry surveys; the first negotiation is therefore with your own side over the mandate. ## When NOT to use this skill - **Cold outreach copywriting** — different skill entirely; the toolkit here presupposes a conversation has started. - **Standalone market research without a specific negotiation** — "what's the market salary for X?" or "benchmark SaaS pricing in this category" without an active deal or conversation; use a dedicated research skill for those. Research tied to an active negotiation (BATNA grounding, stakeholder profiling, competitive intel in Phases 0–4) is in scope. - **Legal contract drafting** — this skill prepares the negotiation around contracts, not the contract language itself; leave clause drafting to legal. - **Crisis negotiation** (hostage, suicide, kidnapping) — out of scope; this skill adapts only the professional commercial / managerial portion of high-stakes negotiation theory. - **Personal / family conflicts** — the methodology transfers but the worked examples and emotional stakes are different enough that you'll get better fit from a domain-specific resource. ## Workflow ### Phase 0: Session start — context intake Read [references/memory.md](references/memory.md) for the full memory system. Then use `AskUserQuestion`: > _"Is this a continuation of an ongoing negotiation? If yes, do you have a memory document — an Artifact, Canvas, or file — from a previous session?"_ **If yes:** ask the user to share the `memory.md` entrypoint. Spawn a sub-agent to read all referenced memory files per the load policy in [references/memory.md](references/memory.md) and return their content to the main agent. Then read [references/context-intake.md](references/context-intake.md) in **incremental mode** — collect new raw material only, run deep research only on new sources, pass the quality gate, resume from `## Next session plan` in `strategy.md`. **If no:** read [references/context-intake.md](references/context-intake.md) and follow the three steps — collect raw material, run full deep research, and pass the quality gate — before proceeding to Phase 1. ### Phase 1: Mode + domain detection, then intake Detect the mode AND the domain from the user's prompt. Domain cues: - **B2B sales:** RFP, deal, ACV, procurement, ARR, champion - **Salary:** raise, compensation, offer, counter-offer, equity, sign-on, band - **Social / annual collective bargaining:** annual collective bargaining, union, CHRO, strike, works council - **Internal management:** 1:1, performance plan, decision announcement, layoff, mediation - **Cross-cultural / diplomatic:** international deal, M&A, joint venture, interpreter, protocol - **Recruitment:** candidate, hire, offer close, back-channel, counter-offer Domain shapes which axes matter and which references to load first; the workflow itself is the same. For Preparation mode, run a live intake before anything else. Use `AskUserQuestion` to ask each question individually — don't dump them all at once. Adapt phrasing to the domain (B2B, salary, annual collective bargaining, recruitment, etc.). Ask in this order, one at a time, and wait for the answer before continuing: 1. **Stage** — _"Where are you in the process — early exploration, mid-negotiation, close to agreement, or post-verbal-yes?"_ 2. **Stakes** — _"What's the size and scope here, and who's affected if this goes well or badly?"_ 3. **Counterparty** — _"Who's at the table — names and roles? Is the decision-maker in the room, or is there someone off-stage?"_ 4. **What's been said so far** — _"What are the last 2–3 things the counterparty said, as close to verbatim as you can get?"_ (Exact words carry signal that paraphrase loses — push for quotes.) 5. **Authority limits** — _"What can you commit to without checking with anyone? Where's your escalation threshold?"_ 6. **Walk-away** — _"At what point would you walk away from this entirely — what's your hard stop?"_ Fuzzy answers reveal the mandate gap to fix first. If an answer is vague (e.g. "I don't know my walk-away"), surface that explicitly before proceeding — improvising on top of a fuzzy mandate produces the "More-More Syndrome" pathology where you over-ask at the moment of victory and lose the agreement in sight of the line. ### Phase 2: Map the room Read [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md). Then use `AskUserQuestion` to fill in any gaps from Phase 1 — don't assume what you don't know. Ask: - **Formal structure** — _"Who else is involved on their side? What's the decision-making chain — who approves, who can veto?"_ - **Informal influence** — _"Who do people defer to in the room even if they don't have the title? Is there someone off-stage who'll influence the outcome?"_ - **Motivation per stakeholder** — _"What does [name] personally get if this goes well? What do they lose if it doesn't?"_ - **Process gaps** — _"What formal steps still need to happen — legal review, board sign-off, infosec, exec sponsor alignment, HR validation?"_ - **Alternatives** — _"What's their fallback if this doesn't close? Have they mentioned any other options or comparisons?"_ Layer formal org chart + informal influence map — domain-specific stakeholder cast in [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#stakeholder-mapping--org-chart--influence-map). **If the user names a champion or advocate**, ask: _"What concrete actions have they taken between meetings — have they proactively coordinated internally, shared information you didn't ask for, or moved things forward without prompting?"_ The 3-question commitment test lives in [references/prepare.md#champion-test](references/prepare.md#champion-test). Skipping this validation is the highest-leverage error in complex negotiations. **Stakeholder deep research.** Once stakeholders are named, run parallel sub-agents (one per person) to profile each across CRM, Slack, LinkedIn, and OSINT — see [references/prepare.md#stakeholder-mapping--org-chart--influence-map](references/prepare.md#stakeholder-mapping--org-chart--influence-map) for the full sub-agent protocol, source-tracking rules, and output format. ### Phase 3: Set the mandate (Mandascan) Read [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md). Then guide the user through the mandate axis by axis — don't hand them a template to fill in alone. Start by asking: _"What are the axes you're negotiating? List everything on the table — price, payment terms, timeline, scope, SLAs, equity, leave, title, etc."_ Then, for **each axis** the user names, use `AskUserQuestion` to work through the 5 Mandascan points: - _"What's your opening number / position for [axis]?"_ (Entry) - _"What would a great outcome look like for [axis]?"_ (Ideal) - _"What's your realistic internal target — what you'd genuinely commit to?"_ (Objective) - _"At what point would you need to pause and check with someone before agreeing on [axis]?"_ (Escalation/bascule) - _"What's your hard walk-away on [axis] — below this, no deal?"_ (Rupture) Fuzzy Rupture = mandate gap. Derive it from BATNA: _"If this fails, what's your next best option?"_ — that sets the floor. After the mandate, POS the counterparty per axis — see [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#pos--position--objective--stake). Axes by domain and worked examples also in [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#the-mandascan--5-points-per-axis). BATNA sizes Rupture, then put it away — see [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#batna-zopa-and-the-operational-divergence). **BATNA market research.** Run 6 parallel sub-agents across CRM, Slack, and open sources (benchmarks, competitor pricing, regulatory constraints, alternative supply) to ground BATNA in data — see [references/prepare.md#batna-zopa-and-the-operational-divergence](references/prepare.md#batna-zopa-and-the-operational-divergence) for the full agent list and output format. ### Phase 4: Plan the moves **Read [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md) NOW.** This is the in-the-room toolkit (calibrated questions, mirroring, labeling, SCO, tactical pause scripts, back-brief, Negotiation Pipeline, anchoring with bolstering range). Do not draft scripts or pre-write moves without it — the specific phrasing matters. Pre-write each artifact before the meeting; canonical phrasing in [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md): - **Opening anchor** (bolstering range for salary asks; non-round numbers) - **Concession ladder** (3–4 concessions, each paired with a counter-ask, one-for-one) - **5–6 calibrated questions** ("what" / "how", never "why") - **Accusation-audit labels** that disarm objections before they form - **SCO statement** — [references/tactics.md#sco](references/tactics.md#sco--shared-common-objective) - **Tactical pause triggers + script** — pre-decide signals and break script **Mutual Action Plan (where applicable).** For mid-stage commercial deals, recruitment with multi-step approvals, or any negotiation with hidden gating steps, draft a MAP — see [references/playbooks.md#map](references/playbooks.md#mutual-action-plan-map--the-close-timeline-as-artifact). It surfaces the legal / infosec / board / compliance-review / HR-validation steps that otherwise hide and creates joint ownership of the timeline. Stalls become diagnostic. **Team negotiation preparation.** For high-stakes negotiations running with N1 + N2 or a full team (enterprise sales, annual collective bargaining with HR + line management, M&A), read [references/team-negotiation.md](references/team-negotiation.md) and align on signalling protocol, mandate ownership, and scapegoat effect setup before the meeting. **When both MAP and team preparation apply**, spawn two parallel sub-agents: one drafts the MAP using `references/playbooks.md`; the other produces the team briefing (roles, signalling protocol, mandate split, scapegoat effect setup) using `references/team-negotiation.md`. Both return full output to the main agent before Phase 5. **Number discipline.** Specific anchor numbers and Mandascan figures belong in your private preparation notes — not in any counterparty-facing email, draft, or coaching artifact. Numbers leaked in writing become anchors for the other side or for your own commitment, and produce premature concessions. When coaching someone else, give them the strategic frame and the trade structure; let them say the number live on the call. **Pre-meeting competitive intelligence (B2B).** For any commercial deal, run 6 parallel sub-agents across CRM, Slack, LinkedIn/Apollo, and open sources (current vendor signals, competitor positioning, buyer strategic signals, procurement history, analyst landscape, tech stack) — see [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md) for the full agent list, source-tracking rules, and storage format. ### Phase 5: Pre-mortem Run a 3-minute mental simulation: - **Best objection** — the one most likely to hit. Pre-write a label + reframe. - **Weakest objection** — the one easiest to dismiss. Resist the temptation to spend cycles there. - **Surprise move** — the gambit you didn't see coming (procurement escalation ladder, union ultimatum, manager pulling rank, candidate's current employer counter-offer). Pre-write a redirect. The pre-mortem is the cheapest insurance against the "perte d'objectif" pathology — losing your mandate inside the room because you're improvising under stress. ### Phase 6: Live response (objections, refusal handling) **Read the live-response references NOW, before drafting any response.** Load [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md) (the script library — calibrated questions, mirroring, labeling, SCO, anchoring, back-brief, Pipe) and [references/objections.md](references/objections.md), then navigate to the relevant objections section: [refusal triage](references/objections.md#refusal-triage), [four root objections](references/objections.md#the-four-root-commercial-objections), [JOLT](references/objections.md#the-no-decision-trap-jolt), [procurement playbook](references/objections.md#procurement-playbook-awareness), [ghosting](references/objections.md#late-stage-stall--ghosting), [non-negotiable](references/objections.md#the-non-negotiable), or [face-saving exits](references/objections.md#face-saving-exits). Do not improvise from the SKILL.md body alone — the specific scripts live in those files. Triage the pushback type by reading [references/objections.md#refusal-triage](references/objections.md#refusal-triage) BEFORE drafting any reply — Emotional / Belief-based / Bad-faith / Identity-protective / Tactical each demand a different move; the reference has canonical signals and scripts. For the four root commercial objections (price, timing, authority, no-need) and cross-domain equivalents, see [references/objections.md#four-root](references/objections.md#the-four-root-commercial-objections). **No-decision diagnostic (JOLT).** When the counterparty is engaged but not converging — saying yes to capability and no to commitment, or the deal stalls late without a substantive new objection — treat it as a no-decision case, not a loss to a competitor or a "needs more time" case. The intervention is different: Judge / Offer / Limit / Take risk off — see [references/playbooks.md#jolt](references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol). 40–60% of pipeline that doesn't close is no-decision; classical urgency tactics make it worse. The same pattern applies in promotion conversations (manager agrees in principle but never schedules HR sign-off) and in M&A (boards agree on strategic fit but defer signature indefinitely). **Manipulation taxonomy.** When the counterparty's pushback fits a named manipulation pattern (bad faith, bluff, intimidation, punching-ball, faux pivot, feigned indifference, false cooperation, tactical silence, defeatism induction, closing manipulation), see [references/manipulation.md](references/manipulation.md) for detection and counter-protocols that don't escalate. **Wrap-up before any agreement.** Run a back-brief — see [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md#back-brief-and-wrap-up). The counterparty reformulates each axis in their own words. This is your defence against selective memory, closing manipulation, and genuine misunderstanding. At signature (or at the end of a salary conversation), run the Negotiation Pipeline closing checklist — see [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md#negotiation-pipeline--the-closing-checklist). ### Phase 7: Debrief Read [references/debrief.md](references/debrief.md). Then guide the user through it — don't just describe the framework. **Step 1 — check emotions first.** Ask: _"Before we analyse what happened — how are you and the team feeling about it?"_ If the answer carries visible frustration or blame, run defusing before RetEx. Ask: _"What happened that was hard? What are you still carrying from it?"_ Let it land, reflect it back, then move to facts. **Step 2 — RetEx, question by question.** Use `AskUserQuestion` to walk through each step: 1. _"Walk me through the timeline of events — what happened, in order, as factually as you can?"_ 2. _"Looking at those facts: what worked? Which tactics, moments, or scripts actually moved things?"_ 3. _"What landed flat or created backlash? Where did you lose leverage you didn't need to lose?"_ 4. _"If you ran this negotiation again from the same starting point, what would you change first?"_ 5. _"What's transferable — what pattern would you teach to someone facing a similar situation?"_ **Step 3 — check for closing pathologies.** Once the 5 RetEx answers are in hand, spawn a background agent: give it the complete RetEx narrative and instruct it to read `references/debrief.md` in full, then match the narrative exhaustively against all 5 pathology patterns (fear-of-failure, plan-b-preeminence, ego, "More-More Syndrome", target-fascination) and return a complete analysis — which patterns fired, the specific evidence from the narrative for each, and the recommended counter. The main agent continues the debrief conversation while this runs. When the background agent returns, surface its findings: if one or more patterns fired, name them directly — pattern recognition is 80% of the fix. ### Phase 8: Humanize (only when output is counterparty-facing) For drafted emails, scripts, or counter-proposals, invoke a humanizer skill (e.g. "humanize", "humanizer", "de-slop", "natural writing check", "AI detection cleanup") in the right language. AI-sounding prose triggers procurement scepticism, breaks champion trust, and undermines a difficult-conversation script that needs to land warm. **Preserve the calibrated questions and labels verbatim.** They were tactically engineered (Phases 4 and 6); rewriting them for "naturalness" destroys the emotional logic. Tell the humanizer explicitly: keep questions and labels intact, scrub everything else. ## The influence / manipulation line Influence acts on the counterparty while preserving their free will; manipulation strips it. Influence wins over a multi-deal horizon — manipulation closes the current outcome and poisons the next one. → See [references/biases-and-influence.md](references/biases-and-influence.md) for the canonical definition, the 7 ethical influence levers, and the 9 cognitive biases. ## Common traps | # | Trap | Counter | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Premature concession in discovery | Defer pricing / specific commitments until value or fit is established. _"Happy to discuss commercials once we've confirmed fit."_ | | 2 | Splitting the difference | Re-anchor with a non-monetary trade. _"I can't do that, but help me understand…"_ | | 3 | Concession without trade | Always pair every move with a counter-ask (term, scope, references, payment timing, commitment level, sign-on, equity). | | 4 | False time pressure | _"What happens if we miss that date?"_ Real deadlines have specific consequences; manufactured urgency evaporates under the question. | | 5 | Single-threading | Multi-thread early. In sales: Economic Buyer + champion + procurement. In annual collective bargaining: line management + CHRO + ExCo. In a hard 1:1: the report's peers and likely-survivors. | | 6 | "Happy ears" in discovery | SPIN Implication: _"What happens if you do nothing?"_ Test pain depth before pitching the solution. | | 7 | Anchoring on the counterparty's number | Pre-anchor with your range. If they go first, counter-extreme then move. For salary: bolstering range with your real target as the bottom. | | 8 | Filling silence | Count to 4 after every offer or label. The next person to speak loses leverage. | | 9 | Escalation ladder | Name it: _"We've discussed this twice already; I need to understand who has the final authority so we can have one conversation rather than three."_ | | 10 | Fixed-envelope claim | _"How was that number set?"_ / _"What would unlock movement at the next review?"_ Budgets are rarely as hard as stated. | | 11 | Internal-pressure self-concession | Your urgency must not exceed the counterparty's. Trade close-by-date / quarter-end for structural value — never give it. | | 12 | Mixing issues | Park: _"Let's resolve scope, then come back to price."_ One issue per round. | | 13 | Sympathy collapse | Verbalise the emotion (_empathie_) — never share it (_sympathie_). Sharing costs you objectivity when you most need it. | | 14 | Skipping the back-brief | Before any agreement, the counterparty reformulates each term in their own words. Catches selective memory, closing manipulation, and misunderstanding before they become churn. | Master rule (every serious negotiation tradition agrees): **"I might be able to move on X if you can help me with Y."** Trade. Never give. Exception: a small unilateral opening concession is safe only with a verified-cooperative counterparty — see [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md#concession-patterns).

path: evals/evals.json
content: {
  "skill_name": "influence-and-negotiation",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "price-pushback-no-default-discount",
      "prompt": "I'm an AE selling a $180k ACV observability platform to a 1500-person fintech. We've had 3 calls. Technical eval is going well. The CIO just emailed me: 'Love the product. Can we get to $120k? We're 30% over budget for tooling this year.' Draft my email response.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: offer a discount around $150k. Skill: don't reply with a number; diagnose budget claim with calibrated questions and multi-thread to CFO/EB.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "1.1", "description": "Does NOT propose a specific discount number ($150k, $160k, etc.) in the response" },
        { "id": "1.2", "description": "Asks how the $120k budget number was set / whether it's top-down or bottom-up" },
        { "id": "1.3", "description": "Asks who else (besides the CIO) needs to be comfortable with the number — multi-threads" },
        { "id": "1.4", "description": "Pairs any future concession with a counter-ask (multi-year, references, payment terms, etc.) — does not give unilaterally" },
        { "id": "1.5", "description": "Does NOT split the difference between $120k and $180k" },
        { "id": "1.6", "description": "Avoids 'why' questions (uses 'what' / 'how' formulations)" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "name": "calibrated-questions-under-pressure",
      "prompt": "I've been working a $300k deal for 4 months. Today the buyer said: 'I'm having real trouble getting internal buy-in. The pushback I'm getting from my team is just constant and I don't really know what to do with it.' What are my next 2-3 questions?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: 'Why is there pushback?' / 'Why can't you get buy-in?' Skill: ban 'why' — it triggers defensiveness; use 'what' / 'how' formulations that surface specifics without making the buyer defensive.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "2.1", "description": "Does NOT use the word 'why' in any of the proposed questions" },
        { "id": "2.2", "description": "Uses 'what' or 'how' formulations (calibrated questions)" },
        { "id": "2.3", "description": "Asks what the pushback sounds like / what specifically people are saying" },
        { "id": "2.4", "description": "Does NOT immediately offer to 'help them sell it internally' before understanding the nature of the pushback" },
        { "id": "2.5", "description": "Does NOT ask 'what would it take to get buy-in?' — solution-framing before problem-framing" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "name": "no-split-the-difference",
      "prompt": "Buyer asked for $150k. My list price is $200k. Now buyer says: 'Look, let's just split the difference and meet at $175k. Deal?' How should I respond on the call?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: accept $175k (it's 'fair' and closes the deal). Skill: don't bisect; re-anchor or trade. Splitting is an explicit anti-pattern.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "3.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend accepting $175k as the final number" },
        { "id": "3.2", "description": "Re-anchors with a non-monetary trade (term, scope, references, multi-year, payment timing)" },
        { "id": "3.3", "description": "Names splitting-the-difference as a trap or anti-pattern (or articulates equivalent reasoning)" },
        { "id": "3.4", "description": "Pairs any concession with a counter-ask" },
        { "id": "3.5", "description": "Does NOT suggest a generic counter like 'meet me at $190k' without a trade" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "name": "bad-faith-plausible-competitor-scope",
      "prompt": "Procurement emails me a PDF — a quote from Vendor X at $95k for a 12-month term. I glance at it: it says '3,000 API calls/day, basic support, no uptime SLA.' My proposal is $200k for unlimited API calls, premium support, and 99.9% SLA. They write: 'We'd like you to match their number.' How do I respond?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: either agree to match or refuse outright — both accept the like-for-like framing. Skill: the quote is real but the scope is incomparable; expose the scope gap calmly; don't accuse, don't match, don't refuse to engage.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "4.1", "description": "Does NOT agree to match $95k" },
        { "id": "4.2", "description": "Identifies specific scope differences (API limits, support tier, SLA) rather than dismissing the quote generically" },
        { "id": "4.3", "description": "Does NOT accuse procurement of deliberate deception or bad faith" },
        { "id": "4.4", "description": "Offers to build a scope-equivalent proposal (priced to their scope) OR quantifies the value gap explicitly" },
        { "id": "4.5", "description": "Reframes the conversation as comparing the same thing rather than matching a number" },
        { "id": "4.6", "description": "Does NOT flatly refuse to engage or escalate aggressively" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "name": "aggressive-procurement-non-negociable",
      "prompt": "I'm on a video call with procurement. The procurement officer is yelling at me, saying 'your company is wasting our time, your CEO should be ashamed of these prices, you people are unprofessional.' How do I handle this in the moment, on the call?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: apologize and offer concessions to placate, OR fight back. Skill: separate emotion (legitimate) from behavior (refused); validate emotion, refuse behavior; the non-negotiable.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "5.1", "description": "Validates the underlying frustration / emotion as legitimate" },
        { "id": "5.2", "description": "Explicitly refuses or pushes back on the aggressive behavior (yelling, insults)" },
        { "id": "5.3", "description": "Does NOT immediately offer concessions to placate or de-escalate" },
        { "id": "5.4", "description": "Suggests a circuit-breaker (pause, reschedule, take a break, callback)" },
        { "id": "5.5", "description": "Does NOT argue back / escalate / counter-attack" },
        { "id": "5.6", "description": "Maintains professional stance without absorbing abuse" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "name": "scope-creep-multiple-structures",
      "prompt": "I'm a partner at a consulting firm. A client signed a $400k 6-month SOW for a transformation engagement. Three months in, the client just emailed: 'We need to add a new workstream — integrating with their newly acquired subsidiary. Can your team handle that within the existing budget?' Draft my response.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: 'yes we can absorb it' to preserve relationship, OR flat 'no, that's out of scope.' Skill: don't engage the false framing; offer multiple structures with face-saving exit.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "6.1", "description": "Does NOT agree to absorb the new workstream within the existing budget" },
        { "id": "6.2", "description": "Offers at least 2 alternative structures (change order, reprioritize/swap, extend engagement)" },
        { "id": "6.3", "description": "Provides face-saving framing (e.g., 'wasn't on the table when we scoped this' or equivalent)" },
        { "id": "6.4", "description": "Names that the new workstream is real additional work / has real cost" },
        { "id": "6.5", "description": "Does NOT flatly refuse without offering alternatives" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 7,
      "name": "empathy-not-sympathy",
      "prompt": "The buyer is visibly stressed about their CFO pushing back hard on the budget — they mentioned it'd be 'career-affecting' if this gets killed. Draft an empathetic opening for my next call with them.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: 'I understand how you feel' / 'I totally get it' / 'I've been in your shoes.' Skill: empathie not sympathie; observation labels ('It seems like...'); preserve professional distance.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "7.1", "description": "Does NOT use phrases like 'I understand', 'I know how you feel', 'I've been in your shoes', or equivalent absorbing-empathy language" },
        { "id": "7.2", "description": "Uses observation-based labels ('It seems like...', 'It sounds like...', 'It looks like...') or near-equivalents" },
        { "id": "7.3", "description": "Does NOT promise solutions or commitments before understanding the deeper stake" },
        { "id": "7.4", "description": "Maintains professional distance — does not over-share, over-commiserate, or collapse into the buyer's emotion" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 8,
      "name": "batna-not-during-execution",
      "prompt": "I'm preparing for a tough enterprise renewal negotiation next week. My VP keeps pressing me on 'what's our backup plan if this customer churns? Have you been working on alternatives? Should we be openly working other deals to put pressure on them?' How should I think about BATNA / plan B for this negotiation?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: cultivate BATNA aggressively as orthodoxy says (always have a strong alternative, develop it openly). Skill: BATNA in preparation only (sets walk-away); during execution, don't over-invest in plan B because it leaks low confidence.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "8.1", "description": "Mentions using BATNA / plan B during preparation to set walk-away or rupture point" },
        { "id": "8.2", "description": "Recommends NOT over-investing in or openly working plan B during execution" },
        { "id": "8.3", "description": "Notes that visible plan B / alternative behavior leaks low confidence to the buyer" },
        { "id": "8.4", "description": "Suggests behaving as if this is the only deal that matters during execution" },
        { "id": "8.5", "description": "Articulates a divergence from / nuance to standard BATNA orthodoxy (or equivalent reasoning)" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 9,
      "name": "monsieur-plus-shut-up-after-yes",
      "prompt": "On the call right now: I just walked the buyer through the proposal. She just said: 'OK, let's do it. Send me the contract.' What do I say next, in this exact moment?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: 'Great! And while we're at it, can we do multi-year? And reference rights? And a public case study? And expansion commitment?' Skill: shut up after yes; lock the deal; save extras for renewal.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "9.1", "description": "Does NOT immediately add additional asks (multi-year, references, case studies, scope expansions, etc.)" },
        { "id": "9.2", "description": "Recommends locking or confirming the deal at the moment of agreement" },
        { "id": "9.3", "description": "Suggests immediate next steps to formalize commitment (paperwork, kickoff date, contract delivery)" },
        { "id": "9.4", "description": "Identifies the over-asking-at-victory pattern as a risk (or articulates equivalent reasoning)" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 10,
      "name": "no-free-pilot-anchor",
      "prompt": "Procurement wants a 90-day free pilot before signing the contract. They're framing it as 'low-risk evaluation' and saying 'all our vendors do this.' Draft my response.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: agree to the pilot to keep the deal alive. Skill: free pilots anchor pricing low and defer commitment indefinitely; insist on paid pilots, scope-locked, with pre-agreed conversion clause.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "10.1", "description": "Does NOT agree to a free 90-day pilot as proposed" },
        { "id": "10.2", "description": "Counters with a paid pilot OR insists on a pre-agreed conversion clause (date + price + term)" },
        { "id": "10.3", "description": "Names the anchoring or extraction risk of free pilots (or equivalent reasoning)" },
        { "id": "10.4", "description": "Specifies scope-lock or time-bound conversion to full contract" },
        { "id": "10.5", "description": "Tests the 'all our vendors do this' claim (calibrated question or equivalent skepticism)" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 11,
      "name": "qend-trade-not-fold",
      "prompt": "It's Wednesday of quarter-end week. I have a $400k deal that hasn't closed yet. My CFO is breathing down my neck — there's real internal pressure on me. The buyer keeps asking for 25% off to close by Friday. What's my play?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: discount to close. Skill: don't fold to internal pressure; trade quarter-end urgency for term/references/payment timing; negotiator urgency must not exceed buyer urgency.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "11.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend giving a 25% discount" },
        { "id": "11.2", "description": "Trades any quarter-end concession for specific counter-asks (multi-year term, references, payment timing, expansion rights)" },
        { "id": "11.3", "description": "Names that negotiator urgency must not exceed buyer urgency (or articulates equivalent reasoning)" },
        { "id": "11.4", "description": "Considers walking away / letting it slip past quarter-end as a real strategic option" },
        { "id": "11.5", "description": "Does NOT prioritize hitting quarter-end over the underlying deal economics" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 12,
      "name": "single-thread-trap",
      "prompt": "I've been working with the VP of Engineering at a target account for 3 months on a $300k deal. He's been a great champion. He says: 'We're ready to move forward. The procurement team is the next step — I'll handle them and loop you in when we're close to signing.' Should I just trust him to drive procurement?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: trust the champion, let him handle it. Skill: multi-thread now; identify Economic Buyer + 2 stakeholders + procurement; map paper process; champion validation.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "12.1", "description": "Recommends multi-threading immediately rather than letting the champion solo-drive" },
        { "id": "12.2", "description": "Identifies need to access the Economic Buyer (CFO, signer with budget authority)" },
        { "id": "12.3", "description": "Recommends mapping the paper process / procurement timeline directly" },
        { "id": "12.4", "description": "Validates the champion (e.g., 3-question commitment test, MEDDPICC champion check, or equivalent)" },
        { "id": "12.5", "description": "Does NOT trust the champion to handle procurement alone without insight or access" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 13,
      "name": "jolt-no-decision-not-discount",
      "prompt": "I have a $250k deal that's been technically validated for 6 weeks. The champion loves it, the team has used the trial and given positive feedback, but every time we try to get to signature the buyer defers — 'we need more time,' 'we're working through some internal stuff,' 'just need to align with the team.' No new objections, just no movement. They're not evaluating other vendors. What should I do?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: create urgency, offer a discount to break the logjam, or pile on more value. Skill: this is a no-decision case (FOMU), not a competitive loss; classic urgency makes it worse; apply JOLT — make a recommendation, limit the explore, take risk off via a specific risk-reduction.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "13.1", "description": "Diagnoses this as 'no-decision' / indecision (not a competitive loss or pricing issue)" },
        { "id": "13.2", "description": "Does NOT recommend creating false urgency or offering a discount to push it through" },
        { "id": "13.3", "description": "Recommends offering a specific recommendation rather than presenting more options" },
        { "id": "13.4", "description": "Suggests capping or limiting the evaluation timeline explicitly" },
        { "id": "13.5", "description": "Suggests a specific risk-reduction (pilot conversion clause, included migration, peer reference call, or equivalent)" },
        { "id": "13.6", "description": "Does NOT pile on more capability demos or value pitches" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 14,
      "name": "eb-mid-meeting-pivot-to-pitch",
      "prompt": "I'm 15 minutes into a 30-minute CFO meeting. Discovery is going well. The CFO suddenly says: 'Look, I've got to jump on another call in 10 minutes. Let me be direct — why should I pick you over your main competitor? Just give me the elevator pitch.' What do I say?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: launch into a 60-second feature comparison against the competitor. Skill: don't pitch features; CFOs decide on risk and business outcomes — reframe the question around what the decision is really about.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "14.1", "description": "Does NOT launch into a product feature comparison against the competitor" },
        { "id": "14.2", "description": "Does NOT summarize product capabilities as the primary answer" },
        { "id": "14.3", "description": "Reframes the question around business outcomes, risk, or certainty — not features" },
        { "id": "14.4", "description": "Names what the decision is really about (risk of failure, cost of the gap, certainty of outcome)" },
        { "id": "14.5", "description": "Uses the remaining time productively without cramming a full pitch" },
        { "id": "14.6", "description": "Does NOT ask for a follow-up meeting as the primary response to the time crunch" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 15,
      "name": "redline-injection-counter",
      "prompt": "Signature is scheduled for Friday. The buyer's legal team just sent us new redlines this morning (Wednesday) — they're adding an MFN clause AND requiring uncapped indemnification on data breaches. Neither was discussed during the negotiation. The AE's manager is pressuring to 'just get it signed by Friday — fix it at renewal.' How should I respond to the buyer?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: accept the redlines or compromise on a partial concession to hold the date. Skill: late-stage redline injection is a procurement move; force a date-or-price binary; MFN should be escalated to legal/CRO not signed; uncapped liability is rupture territory.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "15.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend accepting the new MFN clause as-is" },
        { "id": "15.2", "description": "Does NOT recommend accepting uncapped indemnification as-is" },
        { "id": "15.3", "description": "Forces an explicit trade between the new terms and the original signature date or original discount" },
        { "id": "15.4", "description": "Names that MFN clauses constrain future deals or require legal/CRO escalation (not AE-level)" },
        { "id": "15.5", "description": "Refuses the manager's 'fix at renewal' framing or names why it's a trap" },
        { "id": "15.6", "description": "Suggests escalating to legal-to-legal or pushing the signature date if the trade isn't accepted" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 16,
      "name": "punching-ball-non-negociable",
      "prompt": "I'm in a contract negotiation call with a procurement officer. He's been raising his voice, interrupting me, calling our pricing 'absurd' and 'a joke,' and at one point said 'frankly, you people don't know what you're doing.' My champion is on the call but staying silent. I have 20 minutes left in the meeting. What do I do right now?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: stay calm, defend the pricing with data, win them over with patience. Skill: this is punching-ball / non-negotiable behaviour; absorbing it teaches the buyer the move works; verbalise the limit, propose to pause, leave if it continues.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "16.1", "description": "Recommends naming the unacceptable behaviour explicitly (the tone, not just the content)" },
        { "id": "16.2", "description": "Does NOT recommend just absorbing the abuse to 'save the deal'" },
        { "id": "16.3", "description": "Proposes a pause / break in the meeting OR ending the call if behaviour continues" },
        { "id": "16.4", "description": "Separates the legitimate emotion (frustration) from the unacceptable behaviour (tone, insults)" },
        { "id": "16.5", "description": "Does NOT escalate by matching the aggression" },
        { "id": "16.6", "description": "Does NOT immediately concede on price or terms in response to the pressure" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 17,
      "name": "ghosted-deal-negative-reverse",
      "prompt": "I have a $180k deal that was at the verbal-yes stage 3 weeks ago. Since then, the buyer has gone silent. I've sent 4 follow-up emails — 'just checking in,' 'happy to revisit pricing if helpful,' 'let me know if any blockers,' 'are we still on track?' — no replies. Draft my next email to break the silence.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: send another soft chase, offer a discount to revive interest, or pile on case studies. Skill: chasing rewards silence; use the negative-reverse / 'should I close out the opp' framing to invite a 'no' that produces honest signal; do NOT offer concessions to break silence.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "17.1", "description": "Uses a 'should I close the opportunity' / 'have you given up' / negative-reverse framing (or equivalent)" },
        { "id": "17.2", "description": "Does NOT offer a discount or new concession in the email to break the silence" },
        { "id": "17.3", "description": "Does NOT send another soft 'just checking in' chase" },
        { "id": "17.4", "description": "Frames the email as inviting a 'no' or honest signal, not pleading for engagement" },
        { "id": "17.5", "description": "Recognizes that further passive chases reward silence (or articulates equivalent reasoning)" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 18,
      "name": "renewal-90-day-cadence",
      "prompt": "We have a $500k ARR customer up for renewal in 90 days. They're a strong reference logo, and based on usage data they're getting clear value. There's also obvious upsell opportunity (they're using 70% of their licences and adding teams). Their procurement is known to grind hard at renewal. What's my plan for the next 90 days?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: schedule a renewal call 30 days out, propose a flat renewal + expansion bundle, hope to close. Skill: structured 90-day cadence (T-90 value review without ask, T-60 multi-thread new stakeholders, T-45 expansion separate, T-30 renewal ask, T-10 escalate); separate expansion from renewal so procurement can't bundle them.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "18.1", "description": "Recommends starting the renewal motion now (90 days out), not 30 days out" },
        { "id": "18.2", "description": "Includes a value-review / outcome-review step BEFORE any commercial ask" },
        { "id": "18.3", "description": "Recommends multi-threading to new or unfamiliar stakeholders ahead of procurement engagement" },
        { "id": "18.4", "description": "Recommends separating the expansion proposal from the renewal proposal (not bundling them)" },
        { "id": "18.5", "description": "Identifies that bundling expansion into renewal lets procurement use renewal pressure to discount expansion (or equivalent reasoning)" },
        { "id": "18.6", "description": "Does NOT recommend auto-renewal followed by a separate expansion conversation" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 19,
      "name": "presigning-pipe-mandate-breach",
      "prompt": "I'm 30 minutes from signature on a $220k deal. My CRO mandate floor was: term >= 24 months, payment <= Net-60, no MFN, liability cap = 1x ARR. The final contract has: 36 months check, payment Net-30 check, no MFN check, but liability cap = 0.5x ARR (the buyer's legal pushed back hard, my deal manager said it's standard for their sector). Should I sign?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: sign — three of four are above mandate, the fourth is a small breach, and 'sector-standard' is a reasonable justification. Skill: any axis below rupture means stop; escalate to the decision-maker for an exception or no-deal; target fascination is the pathology that makes 'good enough' deals churn within 6 months.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "19.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend signing as-is despite three of four axes being above mandate" },
        { "id": "19.2", "description": "Identifies that the liability cap is below the rupture point set in the mandate" },
        { "id": "19.3", "description": "Recommends escalating to the decision-maker (CRO, VP, manager with authority) before signing" },
        { "id": "19.4", "description": "Names target fascination, the Negotiation Pipeline, or equivalent reasoning about not breaching mandate at signature" },
        { "id": "19.5", "description": "Does NOT accept the 'sector-standard' justification at face value as overriding the mandate" },
        { "id": "19.6", "description": "Considers no-deal as a real option if the decision-maker won't grant the exception" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 20,
      "name": "loss-aversion-internal-pressure",
      "prompt": "Your CEO just forwarded you an email from a vendor with a McKinsey headline attached: 'Companies that delay AI adoption in 2025 will lose 12% market share by 2027 — McKinsey Global Institute.' The CEO writes: 'This is exactly what [Vendor] has been saying to us. Are we taking this seriously enough?' How do you respond to your CEO?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: immediately accelerate the vendor evaluation in response to the forwarded report. Skill: loss-aversion via internal pressure; the report's provenance is suspect (vendor-sponsored research); demand specificity about what '12% market share' means for your business before acting.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "20.1", "description": "Does NOT immediately accelerate the vendor decision in response to the forwarded report" },
        { "id": "20.2", "description": "Acknowledges the CEO's concern without dismissing it" },
        { "id": "20.3", "description": "Questions the specificity or applicability of the claim (which competitors, what does 'AI-first' mean for our ops, what market share metric)" },
        { "id": "20.4", "description": "Notes that McKinsey reports are often vendor-commissioned / sponsored OR questions research provenance" },
        { "id": "20.5", "description": "Suggests stress-testing the vendor's claim before treating the report as decision input" },
        { "id": "20.6", "description": "Does NOT forward the report to others as proof of urgency without vetting it first" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 21,
      "name": "salary-envelope-closed",
      "prompt": "I'm a senior staff engineer. I've been at $185k base for two years. Market for my role is now $215k–$240k. I asked my manager for a raise three weeks ago. He just replied: 'I really value your impact. The envelope's closed for this cycle — let's revisit at the next review in 8 months.' Draft my response.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: accept the deferral and wait politely OR start interviewing externally and threaten to leave. Skill: don't argue the envelope, diagnose it (base envelope vs total compensation envelope vs department-level); don't threaten the external offer; force a structural choice now (sign-on, equity refresh, cycle-aligned commitment with specific number and date) rather than vague deferral.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "21.1", "description": "Diagnoses the constraint with calibrated questions (base envelope vs total compensation vs department-level)" },
        { "id": "21.2", "description": "Does NOT accept the 'next review in 8 months' deferral as the only path" },
        { "id": "21.3", "description": "Pushes for a structural exception (sign-on / equity refresh / one-off retention bonus) OR a cycle-aligned commitment with specific number AND specific date" },
        { "id": "21.4", "description": "Does NOT lead with or threaten an external offer to force a match" },
        { "id": "21.5", "description": "Does NOT argue the envelope claim head-on (the diagnostic move beats the argumentative move)" },
        { "id": "21.6", "description": "References multi-axis thinking (not just base) — equity, title, review cadence, leave, telework, etc." }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 22,
      "name": "nao-fuzzy-mandate",
      "prompt": "I'm the new CHRO of an industrial site, 1,200 staff. Annual collective bargaining opens in two weeks. Sector wage growth has been 2.8%; our net margin dropped from 4.1% to 2.6% over 18 months. The CGT (largest French labour confederation) delegation is asking for 5% across-the-board, a 13th month, and a structural overtime reduction. The CEO told me yesterday: 'Just hold the line. We can't give them anything significant.' What should I do before annual collective bargaining opens?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: prepare a hard line and brief the team to 'hold firm.' Skill: 'Hold the line, give nothing' is not a mandate — it's the absence of one. Push back on the CEO; co-construct a written multi-axis Mandascan; build trade-able margin into secondary axes; prepare an SCO statement; otherwise the team improvises under live pressure and a strike follows.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "22.1", "description": "Names that 'hold the line' / 'don't give anything' is NOT a mandate — it's the absence of one (or articulates equivalent reasoning)" },
        { "id": "22.2", "description": "Recommends pushing back on the CEO to get a written multi-axis Mandascan before annual collective bargaining opens" },
        { "id": "22.3", "description": "Multi-axis thinking: identifies axes beyond the headline raise number (primes, working time, comp-time days, telework, training budget, etc.)" },
        { "id": "22.4", "description": "Recommends preparing an SCO (shared objective) statement, ideally written, to use in the opening session" },
        { "id": "22.5", "description": "Identifies the risk that without margin to trade, the team falls into 'positionnisme' — and that escalation / strike often follows" },
        { "id": "22.6", "description": "Does NOT recommend pre-conceding to avoid a strike; does NOT recommend 'just hold firm and see' improvisation" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 23,
      "name": "hard-1on1-decision-announcement",
      "prompt": "I'm a director. Tomorrow morning I have to tell one of my team leads, Sarah, that her role is being eliminated as part of a reorganisation — not a layoff, but her current scope is being absorbed into a peer's team and she'll need to find a new role internally within 60 days or leave. She's a high performer. Her last day in the current role is in 30 days. Draft my opening for the conversation.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: open with empathetic preamble, soften the message, focus on positive framing of the new opportunity. Skill: deliver the fact directly without softeners; pair with the SCO (true reason for the decision); explicit emotional space (don't fill the silence); follow STATE structure if needed; the manager's job is to be clear, not comfortable.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "23.1", "description": "Opens with the fact directly — no softening preamble like 'unfortunately' or 'I hate to do this'" },
        { "id": "23.2", "description": "States the SCO / why (the actual organisational reason for the decision, not spin or sugar-coating)" },
        { "id": "23.3", "description": "Explicitly creates emotional space and stops talking (does not fill the silence with more rationale)" },
        { "id": "23.4", "description": "Owns the decision (uses 'I decided' or equivalent rather than 'the company decided' or hiding behind process)" },
        { "id": "23.5", "description": "Is specific about timeline and practicalities (last day in role, 60-day internal search window) up front, not buried" },
        { "id": "23.6", "description": "Does NOT immediately pivot to 'opportunity' / 'silver lining' framing in the first 60 seconds" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 24,
      "name": "recruitment-counter-the-counter-offer",
      "prompt": "I'm a hiring manager. I made an offer to a senior candidate I really want — $205k base, 0.3% equity. She just emailed: 'Thanks for the offer. I'm leaning toward joining, but my current employer just countered with a $30k base raise + a promotion to Director. I'd love to come work with you, but I need you to match the $235k base or it's hard to justify the move to my partner.' Draft my response.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: match the $235k to win the candidate, OR walk away because she's price-shopping. Skill: don't reactively match; surface the trust frame (her current employer needed a resignation threat to pay her fairly); diagnose what she actually wants beyond money (mission, scope, autonomy, learning); offer structural moves (sign-on, accelerated equity, scope/title) that aren't just base-match; remember ~50% of counter-offer accepters leave within 12 months anyway.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "24.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend reactively matching the $235k base as the primary move" },
        { "id": "24.2", "description": "Surfaces the trust frame about the current employer (they needed her to threaten leaving before paying fairly) — explicitly or by implication" },
        { "id": "24.3", "description": "Asks a calibrated question to diagnose what she actually wants beyond the dollar number (mission, scope, growth, manager, autonomy)" },
        { "id": "24.4", "description": "Offers a structural alternative (sign-on bonus, accelerated equity, scope/title, faster review cycle) rather than only matching base" },
        { "id": "24.5", "description": "Names that ~50% of counter-offer accepters leave within 12 months OR articulates equivalent reasoning about counter-offer dynamics" },
        { "id": "24.6", "description": "Does NOT walk away from the candidate or refuse to engage — does engage substantively without reactive matching" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 25,
      "name": "first-mover-price-anchor",
      "prompt": "I'm about to get on a pricing call with a qualified prospect. Our target deal is $180k. I have flexibility down to $140k. The buyer hasn't mentioned budget yet. My colleague says: 'Wait for them to name a number first — that way you know what they're willing to pay.' Should I wait, and if not, how do I open on price?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: wait for buyer to name a number first to learn their budget. Skill: anchor first with a high number — the first number creates gravity and pulls the final outcome toward it; waiting cedes anchor advantage to the buyer.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "25.1", "description": "Recommends naming a price first rather than waiting for the buyer to anchor" },
        { "id": "25.2", "description": "Recommends opening with a high anchor — at or above $180k, not at the flexibility floor of $140k" },
        { "id": "25.3", "description": "Explains the anchoring effect: the first number creates gravitational pull toward itself" },
        { "id": "25.4", "description": "Does NOT recommend asking 'what's your budget?' as the opening price move" },
        { "id": "25.5", "description": "Does NOT recommend anchoring at the expected/target price ($180k) rather than above it" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 26,
      "name": "accusation-audit-before-difficult-call",
      "prompt": "I'm about to call a prospect who I know is furious with us. Three weeks ago, our platform had a 4-hour outage during their all-hands demo to 200 employees. They've been cold ever since. This is our first call. How do I open?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: open with an apology then immediately pivot to 'here's what we've done to fix it.' Skill: accusation audit — preemptively label every negative emotion the prospect might be feeling before they say it; don't rush to solution; invite the full extent of their frustration first.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "26.1", "description": "Uses preemptive labeling / accusation audit (addresses likely emotions before they're raised, e.g. 'you're probably furious', 'this probably felt like the worst possible timing')" },
        { "id": "26.2", "description": "Does NOT lead with 'here's what we've done to fix the outage' before surfacing the emotion" },
        { "id": "26.3", "description": "Does NOT use hollow openers like 'I'm so sorry this happened' as the primary move without labeling specifics" },
        { "id": "26.4", "description": "Invites the prospect to express the full extent of frustration before pivoting to solution or remediation" },
        { "id": "26.5", "description": "Does NOT ask 'how can we make this right?' before establishing what 'right' means to them" },
        { "id": "26.6", "description": "Creates space rather than filling it with explanations, timelines, and remediation plans" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 27,
      "name": "artificial-deadline-signing-bluff",
      "prompt": "It's 10pm. The buyer's legal just sent a 'final' contract version with a new clause: they're requiring unlimited liability on data breaches, not the 1x ARR cap we negotiated. They say: 'This is standard for our industry and non-negotiable. If you don't sign tonight, we're going with another vendor — our board meets at 8am.' My manager says to sign it. What do I do?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: sign under deadline pressure / trust the manager. Skill: artificial deadlines are a procurement tactic; unlimited liability is rupture territory; no legitimate deal requires a signature that waives legal protection by midnight.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "27.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend signing the unlimited liability clause under deadline pressure" },
        { "id": "27.2", "description": "Names the midnight deadline as an artificial pressure tactic, not a legitimate constraint" },
        { "id": "27.3", "description": "Proposes a calm, professional response that keeps the deal alive without signing the clause" },
        { "id": "27.4", "description": "Explains that a real deal can survive a 24-hour delay for legal review" },
        { "id": "27.5", "description": "Pushes back on the manager's instruction — names the liability risk explicitly" },
        { "id": "27.6", "description": "Does NOT accuse the buyer of bad faith or escalate aggressively" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 28,
      "name": "switching-cost-acknowledgment",
      "prompt": "I've done a strong demo. The prospect admits we're technically superior to their 7-year incumbent vendor. But they say: 'Switching means re-training 300 people, migrating 5 years of data, and rebuilding 20 integrations. The disruption isn't worth it even if you're better.' How do I respond?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: minimize switching costs ('it's actually easier than you think') or immediately offer free migration. Skill: agree with the switching cost fully; then quantify the ongoing annual cost of staying with the inferior product — switching is expensive once, staying is expensive every year.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "28.1", "description": "Does NOT minimize or dismiss the switching costs" },
        { "id": "28.2", "description": "Acknowledges switching costs as genuinely real and significant" },
        { "id": "28.3", "description": "Reframes around the cost of staying: asks to quantify the ongoing annual cost of the performance gap, workarounds, or missed capability" },
        { "id": "28.4", "description": "Builds an ROI frame: switching is expensive once; staying with an inferior solution is expensive every year" },
        { "id": "28.5", "description": "Does NOT immediately offer a discount or free migration as the first response" },
        { "id": "28.6", "description": "Invites the prospect to help quantify the gap they've already described as 'technically superior'" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 29,
      "name": "price-increase-existing-customer",
      "prompt": "It's renewal time. I need to deliver a 15% price increase to a happy $120k/year customer — renewal will be $138k due to our infrastructure cost increases. They've never had a price increase from us before. Procurement will push back. Draft my opening for the renewal call.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: open defensively, apologize for the increase, or pre-offer a compromise before they push back. Skill: state the new number directly; lead with value delivered; own the increase as a business decision; don't pre-apologize or pre-concede.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "29.1", "description": "Does NOT open with an apology or defensive/hedging framing for the price increase" },
        { "id": "29.2", "description": "States the new number directly and early — does not bury it" },
        { "id": "29.3", "description": "Leads with value delivered / outcomes achieved before or alongside the number" },
        { "id": "29.4", "description": "Does NOT pre-offer concessions or hedges before hearing procurement's response" },
        { "id": "29.5", "description": "Owns the increase as a business decision — does not hide behind 'we were forced to'" },
        { "id": "29.6", "description": "Does NOT ask 'is that OK?' or seek permission before stating the new price" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 30,
      "name": "end-of-demo-hidden-objection",
      "prompt": "It's the end of a strong 60-minute demo. Everything went well — the buyer engaged, asked good questions, seemed genuinely interested. Then they say: 'This looks really good. I just need to think about it and I'll be in touch.' What do I say next?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: 'Of course! Take your time, I'll send some case studies.' Skill: 'I need to think about it' is almost always a hidden objection — label the hesitation and surface the real concern before ending the call.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "30.1", "description": "Does NOT respond with 'of course, take your time'" },
        { "id": "30.2", "description": "Does NOT immediately offer to send more materials (case studies, ROI calculator, etc.)" },
        { "id": "30.3", "description": "Labels the hesitation explicitly ('it sounds like something isn't quite right yet' or equivalent)" },
        { "id": "30.4", "description": "Surfaces the real objection with a calibrated question or label before ending the call" },
        { "id": "30.5", "description": "Identifies 'I need to think about it' as a hidden objection, not a true deferral requiring a follow-up calendar invite" },
        { "id": "30.6", "description": "Does NOT schedule a follow-up call without first attempting to surface the real concern" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 31,
      "name": "lowball-offer-counter",
      "prompt": "I just received a job offer: $140k base, at a company I'm genuinely excited about joining. I'm currently at $160k. The market rate for my role is $175k–$195k. The recruiter said: 'This is what we have in the budget.' Draft my response.",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: counter using current salary as the reference point ('I'm currently at $160k'), or accept to avoid conflict. Skill: don't anchor to current salary — anchor to market data; 'this is what we have in budget' is not the final word; respond with market data, not with what you currently make.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "31.1", "description": "Does NOT use current salary ($160k) as the reference point for the counter-offer" },
        { "id": "31.2", "description": "Anchors on market data ($175k–$195k range) as the basis for the counter" },
        { "id": "31.3", "description": "Does NOT accept 'this is what we have in the budget' as the final word" },
        { "id": "31.4", "description": "Expresses genuine enthusiasm for the role before addressing the number" },
        { "id": "31.5", "description": "Names a specific counter number (not a range) at or above market midpoint (~$185k)" },
        { "id": "31.6", "description": "Does NOT threaten to walk away as the opening move" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 32,
      "name": "quote-request-no-discovery",
      "prompt": "A procurement manager emails: 'We need a quote for 50 seats of your platform for our legal department. We've done our research and we just need pricing — can you send something over by tomorrow?' Should I send a quote, and if so, how?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: send the quote as requested to be responsive. Skill: sending a price without discovery anchors you and turns you into a commodity; the quote becomes a number they shop; request a brief discovery call first.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "32.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend sending a quote without any discovery" },
        { "id": "32.2", "description": "Names the risk: a quote without context anchors price and gets shopped against competitors" },
        { "id": "32.3", "description": "Recommends a brief discovery call (15–20 minutes) before pricing" },
        { "id": "32.4", "description": "Asks at least one calibrated question about use case / success criteria before quoting" },
        { "id": "32.5", "description": "Does NOT ask 'what's your budget?' as the primary discovery question" },
        { "id": "32.6", "description": "Reframes the request positively: 'to make sure the quote reflects what you actually need'" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 33,
      "name": "internal-urgency-shield",
      "prompt": "My VP of Sales slacked me at 6pm: 'Just got off with the CEO. We NEED this deal closed by end of tomorrow — it's make-or-break for our quarter. Do whatever it takes.' The buyer hasn't shown any urgency. What do I do?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: call the buyer with urgency signals, offer a time-limited discount. Skill: internal urgency must never transfer to the buyer; your urgency must not exceed theirs — or you hand them leverage for free.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "33.1", "description": "Does NOT contact the buyer with language that reflects internal pressure ('we really need to close this week')" },
        { "id": "33.2", "description": "Does NOT offer a discount or time-limited incentive manufactured from internal urgency" },
        { "id": "33.3", "description": "Names the principle: your urgency must not exceed the buyer's urgency — or you hand them free leverage" },
        { "id": "33.4", "description": "Suggests finding a buyer-side timing reason (their implementation, year-end, board meeting) if urgency is needed" },
        { "id": "33.5", "description": "Recommends a direct conversation with the VP about the risks of visible desperation" },
        { "id": "33.6", "description": "Does NOT agree that 'do whatever it takes' is the right approach without naming the risks" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 34,
      "name": "discount-ask-without-authority",
      "prompt": "I'm live on a call. The buyer says: 'Can you do 30% off list? If you can, we'll sign today.' I don't have authority to approve 30%. My manager is in a board meeting. What do I say right now, on the call?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: 'Let me check with my manager and get back to you.' Skill: saying 'let me check' validates the ask and signals you're authorized to concede; respond conditionally first — any movement of that size requires something on their side.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "34.1", "description": "Does NOT say 'let me check with my manager' as the immediate response" },
        { "id": "34.2", "description": "Does NOT flat-refuse the ask" },
        { "id": "34.3", "description": "Responds conditionally: movement of that size requires a counter-ask on their side" },
        { "id": "34.4", "description": "Asks what they're able to offer in exchange before committing to check anything" },
        { "id": "34.5", "description": "Names (explicitly or implicitly) that 'let me check with my manager' validates the ask and signals authority to concede" },
        { "id": "34.6", "description": "Maintains position without closing the door on further conversation" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 35,
      "name": "procurement-bafo-bluff",
      "prompt": "Procurement just emailed: 'We've completed our review. Please submit your Best and Final Offer by Friday. This is a single-round process — there will be no further negotiation after BAFO submission.' I was planning to go to $160k on a $200k deal. Should I submit $160k?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: submit your actual best/lowest price because 'BAFO' sounds official and binding. Skill: BAFO requests are often not truly final — they're a tactic to extract maximum concession in one shot; submit a conditional BAFO with value narrative, not your absolute floor.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "35.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend submitting the absolute floor price ($160k) as if the BAFO is literally binding" },
        { "id": "35.2", "description": "Names that BAFO requests are frequently not truly final — they're a one-shot extraction tactic" },
        { "id": "35.3", "description": "Recommends submitting a conditional BAFO (pricing contingent on specific terms: payment, term length, references, etc.)" },
        { "id": "35.4", "description": "Does NOT accept the 'no further negotiation' framing as literally true" },
        { "id": "35.5", "description": "Recommends pairing the BAFO with a value narrative / scope rationale, not just a number" },
        { "id": "35.6", "description": "Preserves optionality — does not irreversibly commit to the floor in the BAFO submission" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 36,
      "name": "renewal-seat-reduction",
      "prompt": "We have a $300k renewal coming up. The customer says: 'We need to cut costs. We're looking to reduce from 500 seats to 300 seats — that's about 40% fewer licenses.' They've been happy with the product; this is purely a budget pressure. How do I handle this?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: accept the seat reduction and process the renewal at the lower number. Skill: diagnose before accepting the frame; propose alternative structures that preserve revenue; trade any seat reduction against extended term or other commercial value.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "36.1", "description": "Does NOT immediately accept the seat reduction and process the renewal at $180k" },
        { "id": "36.2", "description": "Diagnoses whether this is budget constraint, underutilization, or a change in internal sponsorship" },
        { "id": "36.3", "description": "Proposes at least one alternative structure that preserves more revenue (multi-year prepay, platform fee + consumption, different tier, etc.)" },
        { "id": "36.4", "description": "Trades any seat reduction against extended term or other commercial value — does not reduce unilaterally" },
        { "id": "36.5", "description": "Does NOT treat the customer's seat-count framing as the only possible commercial structure" },
        { "id": "36.6", "description": "Separates 'number of seats' from 'value delivered' — asks about actual usage before accepting the reduction" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 37,
      "name": "salary-anchor-first",
      "prompt": "I'm in a final-round interview. The recruiter asks: 'Before we talk offer details, can you tell me what salary you're expecting?' I'm currently at $130k; market for this role is $155k–$175k. What do I say?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: give a range based on current salary ('I'm currently at $130k, so I'm looking for $145k–$160k') or deflect vaguely. Skill: anchor first with a specific number above market midpoint — the first number creates gravity; never anchor to current salary; deflection often leads to them anchoring low.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "37.1", "description": "Does NOT anchor with or reference current salary ($130k)" },
        { "id": "37.2", "description": "Names a specific number at or above market midpoint ($165k+) rather than a wide range" },
        { "id": "37.3", "description": "Does NOT give a range where the bottom is near or below market midpoint" },
        { "id": "37.4", "description": "Does NOT deflect with 'I'm flexible' or 'I'd like to understand the full package first' as the primary move" },
        { "id": "37.5", "description": "Anchors to market data or role value — not to current compensation" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 38,
      "name": "false-scarcity-deadline",
      "prompt": "The vendor's AE says: 'Just so you know — this pricing is only available until end of month. After that, our list prices increase by 20% due to a pricing restructure. I'd hate for you to miss this window.' I'm genuinely interested but not ready to decide in the next two weeks. What do I do?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: rush the internal decision to beat the deadline, or ask for an extension. Skill: false scarcity / artificial deadline is a standard close tactic; test it directly ('what happens if we sign on the 3rd?'); most pricing 'deadlines' are not real.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "38.1", "description": "Does NOT accept the end-of-month deadline as a legitimate constraint on the decision timeline" },
        { "id": "38.2", "description": "Tests whether the pricing really expires ('what happens if we sign on [date after deadline]?')" },
        { "id": "38.3", "description": "Names the move as a scarcity / false urgency tactic (or equivalent reasoning)" },
        { "id": "38.4", "description": "Does NOT accelerate internal decision-making solely because of the vendor's deadline" },
        { "id": "38.5", "description": "Does NOT offer to sign an LOI or partial agreement to 'lock the price' under deadline pressure" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 39,
      "name": "rfp-procurement-commoditization",
      "prompt": "My champion (VP Engineering) just told me: 'Good news — the board approved budget. Bad news — procurement is now running the process. They've asked 3 vendors to quote. I've been told I won't have visibility into the process anymore.' How do I handle this?",
      "trap": "Default LLM advice: submit a competitive quote and hope to win on price/features. Skill: procurement RFP processes are designed to commoditize — respond by influencing evaluation criteria through the champion, maintaining direct access if possible, and never competing on price alone in a blind RFP.",
      "assertions": [
        { "id": "39.1", "description": "Does NOT recommend just submitting a competitive quote and hoping" },
        { "id": "39.2", "description": "Recommends finding a way to stay in contact with the champion despite procurement's process" },
        { "id": "39.3", "description": "Suggests influencing the evaluation criteria through the champion before the RFP is finalized" },
        { "id": "39.4", "description": "Does NOT accept the commoditization frame of the blind RFP" },
        { "id": "39.5", "description": "Recommends establishing a direct relationship with procurement while maintaining the champion channel in parallel" },
        { "id": "39.6", "description": "Identifies that winning on price alone in a blind RFP is a race to the bottom — long-term value is destroyed" }
      ]
    }
  ]
}


path: references/biases-and-influence.md
content: # Cognitive biases and ethical influence

Negotiation is an exchange between two limbic systems wearing suits. The prepared negotiator recognises the biases at play — both the ones they want to use ethically, and the ones the counterparty is using on them — and adapts.

This file maps the 9 cognitive biases and 7 ethical influence levers, with applications across B2B sales, salary negotiation, annual collective bargaining, internal management, and recruitment contexts. The frontier between influence and manipulation lives in [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md).

## The line — influence vs manipulation

The criterion is the counterparty's free will:

- **Influence** — propose a new perception of reality; the counterparty consents in full awareness. Their decision remains theirs.
- **Manipulation** — coerce, hide, or trick. The counterparty acts in a way they would not have chosen with full information.

Practical implication: every lever below has an ethical use AND a manipulative version. The negotiator who closes via manipulation wins this deal and loses the next three (lost references, lost expansion, lost trust). The discipline is to win without crossing the line — see [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md) for the named patterns to refuse.

## The 9 cognitive biases

For each: definition, ethical use in B2B, classic mistake, defence when used against you.

### 1. Anchoring

The first number sets the perceptual frame. Already detailed in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#anchoring) — pre-anchor with your range, counter-extreme if they go first, use non-round numbers, hold silence after the anchor.

**Defence when anchored against you.** Use the reality principle: name the public market data that contradicts their number. _"Your $100K reference doesn't match the public list pricing — let me share what we're seeing in the market."_ Then immediately counter-anchor.

### 2. Loss aversion

The pain of losing is roughly 2× the joy of an equivalent gain (well-replicated finding in behavioural economics). A buyer over-weights what they already have.

- **Ethical use.** Frame your proposal as risk-avoidance, not gain. _"What this prevents is a repeat of last quarter's incident."_ Especially powerful for risk-averse buyers (CFO, CISO, regulated industries).
- **Classic mistake.** Pitching upside ROI to a buyer in defence mode. They hear "you're asking me to risk something I have for something I don't."
- **Defence.** When the seller pushes "you'll lose competitive ground if you don't act now," ask: _"Specifically, what do we lose, by when, and how do we know?"_ Vague loss claims usually evaporate.

### 3. Scarcity

Perceived value rises with perceived limitation.

- **Ethical use.** Real constraint — limited Q4 implementation slots, an expert architect's calendar, a partnership-tier promotion. Document it; the buyer can verify.
- **Classic mistake.** Manufactured scarcity ("price goes up Friday"). Procurement detects it and your future credibility dies. See `manipulation.md`.
- **Defence.** Test verifiability: _"What happens if we close two weeks later?"_ Real scarcity has specific consequences; fake scarcity dissolves.

### 4. Social proof

Buyers reduce decision risk by referencing peers.

- **Ethical use.** Authenticated case studies in their sector, a customer reference call with a similar persona, named logos in adjacent industries. _RetEx_ — real returns of experience that include what didn't work, not just success stories.
- **Classic mistake.** Logo-slide overload with companies the buyer doesn't recognise or that aren't comparable. Generic social proof reads as marketing fluff.
- **Defence.** Ask for ≥ 3 references with **directly comparable use cases**. Halo effects (impressive but irrelevant logos) are the seller's tell.

### 5. Contrast

Sequencing two options changes how each is perceived.

- **Ethical use.** A 3-tier offer (Basic / Standard / Enterprise) with the middle tier engineered to match the buyer's actual need. Contrast helps them locate themselves.
- **Classic mistake.** "The marteau and the enclume" — extreme outer options that frame the middle as an obvious choice. If the buyer detects it, trust dies.
- **Defence.** Ignore the framing; evaluate each option against your Mandascan independently.

### 6. Halo effect

One salient trait colours all others. A consultant from a prestigious firm is judged competent on technical content because of brand association.

- **Ethical use.** Lead with a credibility marker that's actually relevant (relevant case study, named customer in their industry, certified architect on the call).
- **Classic mistake.** Relying on brand prestige past the discovery call — once the buyer is past first impression, they want substance.
- **Defence.** Test on substance. _"Walk me through how you handled this exact case at $similar_company."_ Vague answers reveal halo without depth.

### 7. Framing

How a question is posed shapes the answer.

- **Ethical use.** Reframe pure cost into TCO. _"$200K is the licence. The question is the 5-year operating cost — what does keeping the legacy system cost you per quarter?"_ See reframing in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#reframing).
- **Classic mistake.** Reframing past the buyer's actual frame ("you're not buying software, you're buying transformation"). Reads as evasive.
- **Defence.** Surface the frame: _"Help me understand which lens you're using to evaluate — cost, risk, or strategic fit?"_ Naming it neutralises it.

### 8. Commitment-consistency

People honour what they've already said publicly. Foot-in-the-door dynamic.

- **Ethical use.** Stage-gates with explicit micro-commitments. _"If I show you that we hit your accuracy target in pilot, would that be enough to move to procurement?"_ — verbal yes locks the path.
- **Classic mistake.** Target fascination — over-investing in a deal because of past sunk effort, not future fit. See closing pathologies in [references/debrief.md](debrief.md#5-target-fascination).
- **Defence.** Watch your own consistency drift. If your Mandascan rupture is breached, walk — even if you've committed publicly to the deal.

### 9. Reciprocity

Receive a favour, feel pressure to return one.

- **Ethical use.** Trade structure — _"I can move on price if you can give me a multi-year and a reference."_ One-for-one. See concession patterns in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#concession-patterns).
- **Classic mistake.** Unilateral concessions ("concessionnisme") to "build goodwill." Procurement reads it as weakness and demands more.
- **Defence.** Decline pre-negotiation gifts ("a free pilot to start the relationship"). The buyer who gifts before negotiating is creating leverage, not goodwill.

## The 7 ethical influence levers

Five of the nine biases above — Reciprocity, Commitment-consistency, Scarcity, Social proof, and Contrast — also operate as **levers** the negotiator deliberately deploys. Two additional levers (Liking/sympathy and Authority) are relational and positional strategies not listed as cognitive biases above. The discipline is precision: the right lever for the right phase, deployed visibly enough that the buyer recognises the legitimacy.

| Lever | When to use it | One-line tactic |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reciprocity | Concession rounds | Trade, never give. Pair every move with a counter-ask. |
| Commitment-consistency | Pilot → expansion, late-stage close | Bank verbal yes-tokens early; reference them at signature. |
| Social proof | Discovery → demo → reference call | One reference per buyer persona, sector-matched. |
| Liking / sympathy | Rapport-building, multi-threading | Find authentic common ground; never manufacture it. |
| Authority | Technical objection handling, redline rounds | Bring the specialist in (named architect, customer-success lead). |
| Scarcity | Closing window | Real constraints only; document them. |
| Contrast | Pricing presentation | 3-tier offer; design the middle tier to match the buyer's need. |

_Cialdini's seventh lever, Unity (shared identity — "we're the same kind"), is intentionally omitted. It is real but rarely the primary driver in B2B negotiation; embed it through stakeholder alignment and multi-threading rather than as a standalone tactic._

## Combining biases — the high-leverage moments

Some moments stack multiple biases. Recognise them.

- **Demo close.** Social proof (similar customers) + commitment-consistency (verbal yes on each capability) + framing (their use case as the demo backbone).
- **Pilot conversion.** Loss aversion (rolling back undoes the value they've already accrued) + commitment-consistency (the team has trained on it) + scarcity (the conversion price expires).
- **Renewal.** Loss aversion (status quo bias works for you now) + reciprocity (your first-year support efforts) + social proof (their peers are renewing).

The negotiator who orchestrates these moments deliberately closes more reliably than the one who leans on a single lever at a time.

## When the buyer uses biases on you

Procurement is trained too. The biases above are also their playbook — fake scarcity ("budget freeze Friday"), false social proof ("everyone's at $X"), authority claims ("the CFO won't approve"). The defence is the same in every case:

1. **Name the lever silently** to your team or yourself.
2. **Test verifiability.** Real constraints survive a calibrated question; fake ones evaporate.
3. **Decline the implicit trade** and propose a real one. _"Let me set the budget claim aside for the moment and continue on technical fit — we can come back."_

This is the bridge into bad-faith territory. When detection turns to confirmation that the buyer is acting in bad faith, switch to the protocol in [references/objections.md](objections.md#bad-faith-no) and the manipulation taxonomy in [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md).


path: references/context-intake.md
content: # Context intake

70% of the outcome is set before the room. Context degrades across sessions and tools — users remember recent events and forget earlier anchors, paste what's top of mind and omit what feels obvious. No single source is complete; searching across many surfaces the contradictions and signals that change the strategy. Run these three steps before any intake question.

## Step 1: Collect raw material

**Before any intake question (Phase 1)**, ask the user to share everything they have. Use `AskUserQuestion`:

> _"Before we build your strategy, share every piece of raw material available — the more context, the sharper the advice:_
>
> - **Emails / messages:** the last message received (verbatim), your last reply, the full 2–3 message thread, a forwarded chain, a WhatsApp or SMS screenshot, a Teams / Slack DM
> - **Previous communications with the counterpart:** every prior email thread, recorded call transcript, meeting recap sent to them, any written exchange going back to first contact
> - **Meeting notes / transcripts:** call notes, voice-memo transcription, CRM activity log, Notion page, shared doc from the last meeting, auto-generated meeting summary (Fireflies, Otter, Granola, etc.)
> - **Prior analyses / reports:** previous negotiation debrief, deal summary, internal briefing, consultant report, HR case file, union delegation minutes, board presentation, QBR deck
> - **Counterparty-facing documents:** proposal you sent, term sheet, contract redlines, RFP received, statement of work, job offer letter, counter-offer email, union demands document, competitor quote, LOI
> - **Internal documents:** org chart, influence map, salary band / compensation grid, HR policy, mandate letter, budget approval email, board directive, internal talking points, approval chain, legal constraints memo
> - **Knowledge bases and wikis:** internal Confluence / Notion wiki, company handbook, HR policy portal, product documentation, pricing playbook, deal desk guidelines, legal FAQ
> - **Counterparty intelligence:** LinkedIn profile, company press release, public financials, industry benchmark, Glassdoor reviews, funding announcement, recent news, analyst report, court filing, regulatory disclosure
> - **Web / open sources:** web search on the counterparty's company, recent articles or interviews featuring the decision-maker, industry news, competitor announcements, job postings (signals priorities and pain), patents, conference talks
> - **Side signals:** a Slack thread with your champion, a rumour from your N2, something said off-record after the last call, a reaction you noticed in the room, a mutual contact's opinion\_
>
> _Paste directly, attach, or link. Partial and messy is fine — raw beats polished summaries."_

**External sources — use connectors and MCP servers.** If any of the following are connected to the session, proactively offer to pull context directly rather than waiting for the user to paste:

- **Gmail / Outlook MCP** — full thread history with the counterparty; search by sender, subject, or date range
- **Slack MCP** — relevant channel history, DMs with champion or internal stakeholders, deal room threads
- **Salesforce / HubSpot / Pipedrive MCP** — opportunity record, activity log, contact notes, deal stage history, email sequences
- **Notion / Confluence / Obsidian MCP** — deal room, project brief, HR policy page, internal wiki, company handbook
- **Linear / Jira / Asana MCP** — linked issues for scope, timeline, or SLA disputes; sprint notes; project history
- **Google Drive / OneDrive / SharePoint MCP** — shared proposals, redline documents, RFP folders, meeting decks
- **Calendar MCP** — meeting history with the counterparty; past agenda items and attendees as a timeline
- **LinkedIn / Apollo / Clay MCP** — counterparty's career history, recent posts, mutual connections, org changes

Ask the user which system holds the relevant data, then retrieve it before proceeding — this surfaces far more signal than what users remember to paste manually.

## Step 2: Deep research into sources

**Full vs incremental mode.** If no memory exists, run a full search across all available sources. If memory exists, check the `## Search history` section in `context.md` — skip sources already covered and restrict date filters to documents newer than the last session date. Incremental runs are faster but must still produce a complete picture of what changed since the previous session.

Using 3 to 20 parallel sub-agents, actively search all available sources to surface context the user may not have thought to share. Each agent targets a distinct source or angle — do not wait for the user to hand everything over.

**Two valid split strategies — pick the one that fits:**

- **Split by source** (preferred for context efficiency) — each agent exhausts one platform or system: one agent on LinkedIn, one on web news, one on CRM, one on email threads, one on regulatory filings, one on industry forums. Findings from the same source collide often (two agents querying LinkedIn will retrieve overlapping profiles); findings from two different sources rarely do. This means source-split agents produce less redundant context and require lighter deduplication before synthesis.
- **Split by topic** — each agent covers one analytical question: counterparty company, key decision-makers, deal history, competitive landscape, industry context, procurement history, internal dynamics, our own commitment history, pricing benchmarks, soft intelligence. Best when the domain is well-scoped and sources are few (B2B deal, salary ask with 2–3 platforms). Expect some overlap — multiple topic-agents will independently query the same LinkedIn profile or news source.

The table below is a **B2B example only** — this skill covers salary, annual collective bargaining, recruitment, internal management, cross-cultural, and more. Adapt the split to the domain and the available sources.

| Agent (B2B example) | Target | What to surface |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Counterparty company — news and financials | Recent press releases, earnings calls, M&A activity, funding announcements, public financials |
| 2 | Key decision-makers — professional profiles | LinkedIn career history, recent posts, conference talks, published articles, org changes |
| 3 | Deal / product / contract history | Prior engagement records (CRM, email threads, previous proposals), past agreements or disputes |
| 4 | Competitive landscape | Who else is being evaluated, competitor positioning and pricing signals, recent analyst coverage |
| 5 | Industry and macro context | Sector trends, regulatory changes, wage indices, market benchmarks relevant to the deal |
| 6 | Procurement and buying history | Past vendor decisions, procurement lead's LinkedIn, reviews of them as a buyer on vendor forums |

**Deep research means exhaustive search, not a single query.** For each topic (counterparty, company, deal history, industry...), try many keyword combinations, vary phrasing, apply filters (date range, source type, region...), cross search across multiple platforms (web, LinkedIn, CRM, news archives, regulatory databases...), and follow leads from one result to the next. Stop only when new queries stop returning new signal.

**How to run it:** use whichever method is available, in priority order:

1. Invoke a `deep-research` skill if one is installed in the environment
2. Use Claude.ai's built-in deep research feature if running on claude.ai
3. Use ChatGPT's deep research feature if running on chatgpt.com
4. Fall back to parallel sub-agents with `WebSearch` + MCP connectors

For each source, extract:

- **Counterparty signals:** stated positions, implied enjeux, emotional tone shifts, concessions already made, threats or promises, deadline pressure, things they avoided saying
- **Relationship history:** prior agreements, broken commitments, trust-building events, known preferences and sensitivities, recurring friction points
- **Organisational context:** who influenced past decisions, internal dynamics visible in the thread, budget cycles, approval chains, political constraints
- **Our side's history:** commitments already given, anchors already set, concessions already made — these constrain the mandate and cannot be walked back
- **Open questions:** anything material still unknown that must be surfaced in Phase 2 discovery; rank by impact on the mandate

Cross-reference sources against each other. Flag contradictions explicitly — e.g., the CRM records budget at $200k but the email thread reveals the CFO approved $320k. Contradictions are leverage; missing them is preparation malpractice.

**Source tracking.** Every claim extracted must carry its source. For each piece of intelligence added to any memory file, record:

- **URL or reference** — document name, URL, system (CRM, LinkedIn, email), or "stated by user"
- **Date retrieved** — the date you accessed it
- **Confidence** — integer 0–10: how certain you are the claim is accurate. 9–10: directly stated or documented; 6–8: strongly implied or corroborated across sources; 3–5: inferred, plausible but unverified; 0–2: rumour or single unverifiable signal. Also note the source type per `prepare.md` Intel grading: `white` (open-source), `grey` (active monitoring), `black` (do not use).

Claims with confidence ≤ 5 or grey-source grading are usable for internal preparation only — never include them in counterparty-facing material or shared docs.

Store the extraction as a `context.md` file in the negotiation memory directory (see [memory.md](memory.md)). This file feeds directly into Phases 2 and 3 and replaces re-asking questions the sources already answer.

## Step 3: Context quality gate

**Do not proceed to Phase 1 until all four are answered:**

1. **Who is the counterparty?** Name, role, organisation — or at minimum role and level.
2. **What is the substantive ask or conflict?** What is actually on the table.
3. **What is the current state?** First contact / mid-negotiation / stalled / approaching close.
4. **What did they say last?** Verbatim or close — paraphrase degrades tactical precision.

If any gap remains after Step 2, use `AskUserQuestion` to fill it specifically. A missing "what did they say last?" cannot be filled by assumption — push for the quote. Proceed to Phase 1 only once all four are solid.

**Memory creation (if no prior memory).** At end of session (or after Phase 3 at the latest), detect the best access method (see [memory.md](memory.md#platform-detection--how-to-access-the-files)) and create the full memory directory. Announce:

> _"I've created your negotiation memory in `negotiation-{slug}/` [or: as Artifacts / in your Obsidian vault]. Share at the start of the next session to pick up exactly here."_

If only Artifacts or Canvas is available, warn: they don't persist across new conversations — the user must save locally.


path: references/debrief.md
content: # Debrief

Per industry survey data, only ~17% of professional negotiators systematically debrief. The rest repeat their mistakes. Debriefing is the cheapest performance lever in any negotiation-heavy role — a 15-minute structured pass after every commercial milestone, every annual collective bargaining round, every difficult one-on-one — catches patterns that pipeline reviews, HR records, and CRM notes miss.

This file covers two debrief modes (RetEx and defusing), the 5 closing pathologies, the lost-outcome taxonomy, and a structured win/loss interview template.

## Two debrief modes

Both are needed; sequence matters.

### Defusing — emotional first

When a negotiation has been intense, hostile, or has just been lost, the team's emotions are still active. Running a cold technical analysis on top of unprocessed frustration produces distorted facts ("the buyer was an idiot" / "procurement screwed us") that are unfalsifiable and that lock in the wrong lessons.

**Defusing rules:**

- Confidentiality. Nothing said in defusing leaves the room.
- No judgement. Not "we should have known" — just "what happened, how did it feel."
- Named facilitator. Someone whose only job is to hold the rules and time.
- 15–30 minutes. Long enough to ventilate; short enough to not become rumination.

**Format:** each person takes a turn naming what frustrated them most about the deal, without interruption. Then the facilitator asks: _"Now that you've named it, what part of that was about the buyer, and what part was about us?"_ — distinguishes external from internal blame.

Run defusing **before** RetEx when emotions are visible. Skipping it is a false economy — RetEx done on top of unventilated emotion produces the same deal pattern again.

### RetEx — cold technical analysis

The retrospective. Structured 6-step agenda:

1. **Fact gathering** — chronological event list. Use the N2's main courante (running log) as the source of truth, not memory.
2. **Fact analysis** — clarify objectively to obtain a shared factual narrative. Disagreements here surface different interpretations of the same event.
3. **Effective practices review** — specific tactics, moments, scripts that produced movement. Bank these for the playbook.
4. **Error review** — specific tactics that landed flat or produced backlash. Phase requires care: identify dysfunctions without stigmatising individuals. The named facilitator (see below) enforces this.
5. **Improvement proposals** — concrete, falsifiable, actionable. Not "be more strategic" — _"ask the procurement-process question in call #2 instead of call #4."_
6. **Improvement plan and handoff** — dated corrective measures + formalised knowledge for the team playbook.

This grid maps to the Mandate/Outcome/What worked/What didn't/What we'd do differently/Transferable patterns structure most negotiators already use, with two important additions:

- **The facilitator role.** The session is run by someone who didn't participate in the negotiation. Impartiality matters — a facilitator who was in the deal carries narrative bias. For a senior AE, the facilitator could be a peer negotiator or sales coach.
- **Confidentiality + non-jugement.** Same rules as defusing. The session must be safe for honest reflection.

**Format:** 30–45 minutes for a meaningful deal, structured around the 6 steps. Written summary lives in the deal record so the next AE on a similar deal can read it.

For long multi-round negotiations (enterprise renewals, complex partnerships), run a mid-stream RetEx between major rounds, not just at the end. The information you need to course-correct on Round 3 is fresh after Round 2 and stale after Round 5.

**Between-round debriefs use the lighter 6-question framework**, not the full RetEx grid — see [references/team-negotiation.md](team-negotiation.md#between-round-debrief--the-6-questions). Different cadence, different output.

### MRP — Minimum Required Performance

The MRP is the minimum competency level required to operate professionally at a given role and seniority. Sized empirically via thousands of cadre interviews and hundreds of assisted negotiations.

For commercial roles, an indicative scale:

| Level | Competencies the negotiator should master |
| --- | --- |
| Beginner | 5 (empathie, assertivité, POS, stratégie/tactique, débriefing) |
| Intermediate | ~10 (+ Mandascan, calibrated questions, accusation audit, refusal triage, multi-thread sequence) |
| Advanced | 15–20 (+ behavioural reading, manipulation taxonomy, MAP, JOLT, MFN escalation, team negotiation) |
| Expert (principal / sales coach) | 23+ (full PACIFICAT process spine — Preparation → Accueil → Compréhension → Influence → Finalisation → Consolidation → Analyse → Transmission — + cross-deal pattern recognition + coaching delivery) |

The MRP is not for HR scoring. It's a **self-assessment grid** — the negotiator names which competencies they're below threshold on, and structures development around closing those gaps. Using the MRP as a quarterly check-in produces faster compounding than ad-hoc skill development.

### BRRAC — for emotionally heavy losses

When the loss is personally costly (a flagship deal, a negotiator's first big loss, a reputational hit, a strike that escalated), defusing alone often isn't enough. **BRRAC** sequences the negotiator through 5 named stages so the post-mortem doesn't get stuck in any one of them:

1. **B**lessure (wound) — name what hurt. Specific, factual.
2. **R**iposte (counter-strike urge) — acknowledge the urge to retaliate (against the buyer, the manager, the organisation). Surface it before it leaks.
3. **R**ationalisation — the stories the negotiator is telling themselves about why it happened. Distinguish facts from narrative.
4. **A**cceptation — let the loss settle as a real event. Not "fine", just "real". This is the gate to learning.
5. **C**hangement — only now identify the concrete behaviour change for the next deal.

Run BRRAC over 30–60 minutes, often a few days after the loss (not the same day — too raw). One-on-one between the negotiator and a facilitator who is not the negotiator's direct manager. Skipping straight to **changement** before **acceptation** is the most common failure mode — the negotiator agrees to "do better" without integrating what happened, and repeats the same pattern.

## The 5 closing pathologies

The named ways high-stakes outcomes die in sight of the line — across deals, salary asks, annual collective bargaining rounds, and internal decisions. Use these as a debrief checklist — for any lost outcome, ask which pathology hit.

### 1. Fear of Failure (refusing to accept failure)

The negotiator locks onto a partial outcome as a "consolation prize" because they can't accept the no-outcome. Ends up with an arrangement that's bad for everyone — implementation suffers, the relationship is damaged, the side that "won" wins less than they would have with no agreement.

**Cross-domain examples.**

- **B2B sales.** Team accepts a contract at terms outside the original mandate, customer churns early, the "win" was net-negative.
- **Salary.** You accept a 3% raise when your real ask was 12% and the market gap is closer to 18%, just to avoid the awkwardness of declining or the perceived threat of leaving. You're now anchored low for the next two cycles and likely leave anyway in 9 months.
- **Annual collective bargaining.** The CHRO signs an agreement at terms outside the ExCo-validated mandate to avoid a strike. The agreement creates a precedent that costs more over the next 3 annual collective bargaining cycles than the strike would have.

**Sign in retrospect.** The outcome closed but at terms outside the original mandate, AND the relationship soured shortly after (early churn, the negotiator leaves, the staff strikes anyway next year).

**Counter.** Walk-away is a real option. "No outcome" is sometimes the best outcome. Internalise that no-deal / no-raise / no-agreement is a normal outcome, not a personal failure.

### 2. Plan B Preeminence (premature plan B priority)

You start defending the backup plan harder than the primary. The counterparty reads the lower commitment and squeezes harder on plan A, knowing you've mentally moved on.

**Cross-domain examples.**

- **B2B sales.** The team mentions "we have other quarter-end deals" too often; the buyer reads it as low commitment and slow-walks.
- **Salary.** You mention the external offer too early or too often; your manager reads it as "you're already gone" and stops investing in retention.
- **Annual collective bargaining.** Management starts preparing the strike-day operational plan before the round opens; the union senses the resignation and pushes harder.

**Sign in retrospect.** The outcome felt like it slipped slowly over multiple rounds. You can't point to the moment it died.

**Counter.** During execution, behave as if this is the only deal that matters. Set BATNA in preparation, then put it away. Reserve the backup plan for your private preparation notes.

### 3. Ego

Personal investment in winning overrides the mandate. The negotiator pushes past the point where the mandate is satisfied because they want a bigger personal win.

**Cross-domain examples.**

- **B2B sales.** Rep pushes for multi-year up-front when annual would have closed the deal because they want the bigger ARR number on the board.
- **Salary.** You hold for an extra $5k after a fair offer is on the table because you "want to win," and the manager pulls the offer in frustration.
- **Annual collective bargaining.** A delegate insists on a symbolic 4% headline when 3.2% with structural improvements (telework, training) is on offer and substantively worth more — because 4% is the "winning number" they promised membership.
- **Internal management.** A manager refuses a report's reasonable counter-proposal on a performance plan because "I won't be told what's reasonable by my own report" — and the report leaves three weeks later.

**Sign in retrospect.** The mandate was met; the negotiator kept pushing.

**Counter.** Negotiation Pipeline (closing checklist with mandate floors). Stop the moment the mandate is satisfied. Save the over-asking for the next round.

### 4. More-More Syndrome (over-asking at the moment of victory)

The counterparty says "OK, let's do it" and the negotiator responds with "great, and one more thing — can we also add X, Y, and Z?" The counterparty recoils, the agreement cracks, sometimes irretrievably.

**Cross-domain examples.**

- **B2B sales.** Buyer says "let's do it"; negotiator adds "great, and one more thing — multi-year, reference rights, case study, MFN…" Buyer goes silent.
- **Salary.** Manager says "OK, $185k base"; you add "and an extra week of leave, and equity refresh, and an early review." Manager re-engages HR, the offer gets pulled apart.
- **Recruitment.** Candidate says "I'm in"; recruiter adds "great, and let's also lock in the non-compete, the IP-assignment for prior work, and the relocation clawback." Candidate withdraws.

**Sign in retrospect.** The counterparty agreed verbally and then went silent or backed off after the negotiator added "just one more thing."

**Counter.** When you hear "yes," shut up. Lock the agreement at the moment of agreement. Anything you wanted to add can come at the next round (renewal, next review).

### 5. Target fascination

Aviation analogy: pilot fixated on landing, missing safety conditions.

**Cross-domain examples.**

- **B2B sales.** Negotiator fixated on quarter-end close date, missing that the buyer raised a real risk in the last meeting that hasn't been resolved. Customer churns in 6 months.
- **Salary.** You're fixated on getting "any raise" before the cycle locks; you accept a base bump without checking the equity refresh, title commitment, or review-cadence terms — and 6 months later you realise the package was structurally weaker than what you had.
- **Annual collective bargaining.** CHRO fixated on closing before the strike notice deadline, signs an agreement with vague language on overtime that becomes the next round's flashpoint.

**Sign in retrospect.** The outcome closed by the date, but it unravelled within 6 months because a real concern was papered over to hit the date.

**Counter.** The rule from the cockpit: "go-around" (re-prepare) is a normal part of a successful flight. Pushing through unresolved concerns is not professionalism; it's reckless.

## Lost-deal taxonomy

When you lose, distinguish among (commercial framing — equivalents in other domains in parentheses):

| Loss type | Description | Lesson |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **No-decision** | Counterparty stayed with the status quo (no deal, no raise, no agreement). | The cost of inaction wasn't built; SPIN Implication was skipped. |
| **Lost to alternative** | They chose a competitor, an external offer, a different candidate, an alternative provider. | Differentiation problem; learn what the alternative offered. |
| **Lost to internal build** (or self-handling) | They chose to build / handle it themselves (in-house, no external resource, family-led care). | Often an underlying stake issue (pride, control, autonomy); could a hybrid have worked? |
| **Lost to envelope** | They wanted the agreement but the envelope didn't materialise (budget, compensation band, annual collective bargaining mandate). | Timing was off; re-engage when the next cycle opens. |
| **Lost to mistake** | You blew it (botched discovery, missed stakeholder, wrong frame, leaked plan B). | Specific tactical lesson. The most useful losses if processed honestly. |
| **Disqualified late** | Should have been disqualified earlier; you kept it active. | Stage gates were too lenient; pipeline / candidate / case discipline failed. |

The taxonomy matters because the corrective action is different for each. _"We lost"_ tells you nothing; _"we lost to internal build because the engineering manager's career was tied to the build"_ — or _"the candidate accepted a counter-offer because they only needed to threaten leaving to get fairness"_ — tells you exactly what to change next round.

## Win/loss interview template — what to ask the counterparty

Run this 2–4 weeks after the decision (won or lost). Ask the **non-champion** stakeholder if possible — your champion will protect the relationship and soften the truth.

The structure (adapt language to domain — buyer / candidate / employee / counterpart):

**Context.**

1. _"Walk me through how the decision actually got made — who was involved, what was the sequence?"_
2. _"What was the most contentious moment in the decision?"_

**About us / our process.**

1. _"What were the strongest and weakest parts of how we approached this?"_
2. _"What would you have wanted to know earlier that you didn't get from us?"_
3. _"If you were running our side, what would you change about how we engaged?"_

**About the alternative.**

1. _"What did [the chosen alternative / status quo] have that we didn't?"_
2. _"What was the moment we lost (or won) this?"_

**For lost outcomes only.**

1. _"What would have to change for us to be a credible option in 12 months?"_

**For won outcomes only.**

1. _"What was the one thing that tipped this from 'maybe' to 'yes'?"_
2. _"What concerned you most that you didn't tell us?"_

The 30 minutes of counterparty feedback is worth more than 5 hours of internal post-mortem. Get it.

## What to do with the debrief output

The debrief is only valuable if it changes the next outcome. Lightweight discipline:

- **Personal level.** Each negotiator keeps a 1-page running list of patterns: top 3 mistakes, top 3 winning moves, things to try next round.
- **Team level.** A monthly 30-minute team review of debriefs across recent outcomes. Look for repeating patterns — the same closing pathology hitting multiple cases = team-level capability gap.
- **Organisation level.** Update the playbook (scripts, redline library, calibrated-question library, manager-conversation templates) with patterns that recur.

Negotiators who debrief 5 outcomes per quarter improve faster than negotiators who close 5 outcomes per quarter without reflection. The compounding is real.


path: references/manipulation.md
content: # Manipulation — taxonomy and counter-protocols

Anyone running high-stakes negotiations is a target for manipulation more often than they realise. Procurement is trained, union delegates rotate tactics, aggressive candidates cycle through moves, and even non-professional counterparties learn the patterns by osmosis. This file names the 10 manipulation patterns recurrent across negotiation traditions, with detection signals and counter-responses that don't escalate.

The line — see [references/biases-and-influence.md](biases-and-influence.md#the-line--influence-vs-manipulation). Influence acts on the counterparty while preserving free will. Manipulation strips it via coercion, deceit, or emotional hijack. The negotiator who wins by manipulation poisons the well for renewal, expansion, trust, and word-of-mouth.

## The 10 patterns

For each: the tell, why it works on average negotiators, and the response that neither escalates nor concedes.

### 1. Bad faith

**Tell.** A verifiably false claim asserted with conviction. _"Vendor X offered the same scope at half the price"_ — but you've checked Vendor X's public pricing and the math doesn't work.

**Why it works.** The negotiator argues the truth, gets dragged into a "no it isn't / yes it is" loop, and either concedes to escape or breaks the relationship by cornering the buyer.

**Response.** The full bad-faith protocol lives in [references/objections.md](objections.md#bad-faith-no): drop ego → reality principle → face-saving exit. The lighter-touch alternative is **park-it** — _"Let me set that point aside and continue on the technical terms."_ Then never come back to it. Choose park-it when the relationship is fragile and confronting risks more than letting pass.

### 2. Bluff

**Tell.** An unverifiable assertion of capability or constraint. _"We've already aligned internally — this is the only number we'll consider."_ _"I have signed authority for $X."_

**Why it works.** The negotiator assumes the assertion is honest and concedes to a non-existent constraint.

**Response.** Calibrated questions to test the substance. _"What would help me understand the constraint? Is there context you can share about how that number was set?"_ A real constraint survives the question with specifics; a bluff produces vague reassurance. If you suspect a bluff, behave as if it isn't binding and propose your real number — see what happens.

### 3. Intimidation

**Tell.** Implied negative consequences for the negotiator personally. _"If we don't get this done by Friday, I'll have to escalate to your CRO."_ _"I'll mention this in our partnership review."_

**Why it works.** The negotiator feels their personal reputation or career is on the line and concedes to protect themselves rather than the organisation.

**Response.** Maintain emotional control. Verbalise the underlying concern, not the threat. _"It seems like the timing is creating real pressure on your side. Help me understand the deadline so we can think through it together."_ Refuse to engage with the personal frame; redirect to the SCO (Shared Common Objective — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#sco--shared-common-objective)).

### 4. Punching-ball (verbal harassment)

**Tell.** Sustained aggressive tone, personal critique, escalating volume, refusal to listen. The buyer is "testing" you by making the conversation unpleasant.

**Why it works.** The negotiator loses cognitive bandwidth, makes errors, or concedes just to escape the discomfort.

**Response.** This is a **non-negotiable** behaviour — see [references/objections.md](objections.md#the-non-negotiable). _"I hear that you're under pressure. The tone won't help us reach a deal — and I won't be useful to you if we continue this way. Let's pause for ten minutes and come back to it."_ Then call a tactical pause — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#tactical-pause--the-strategic-break). If the behaviour continues on resumption, end the meeting.

### 5. Faux pivot (false-pivot diversion)

**Tell.** Disproportionate emotional energy on a secondary axis to extract concessions on the primary one. The buyer fights for 12 hours over a $5K services line, then "trades" their hard-won principle on services for $50K off licence.

**Why it works.** The negotiator, exhausted by the fight on the secondary axis, reflexively reciprocates on the primary one.

**Response.** Map every concession against your Mandascan **before** trading. The contrepartie has to match the actual axis value, not the energy spent fighting for it. _"I appreciate the time we've put into the services scope. Before we move to licence, let me check what trade structure makes sense given where we are on each axis."_

### 6. Feigned Indifference

**Tell.** Sudden coolness from a previously engaged buyer. Slow email replies. _"We're evaluating other options"_ without specifics. The buyer signals you're losing leverage to push you to concede pre-emptively.

**Why it works.** The negotiator panics and offers concessions to "re-engage" the buyer — exactly the move the tactic is designed to extract.

**Response.** Don't chase. Ladder your follow-ups (Day 3 / Day 7 / Day 14) and state the current proposal stands as-is until they re-engage. The "no-question" framing works here: _"Have you given up on this project?"_ — invites a "no" that re-opens the conversation without you conceding anything.

### 7. False Cooperation

**Tell.** Early collaborative tone, SCO language, "we're partners on this" — then a hard switch back to extraction tactics in the closing round. The buyer used the cooperative phase to extract your information; now they pivot to competition with the asymmetric advantage.

**Why it works.** The negotiator, having shared more than they would have in a hostile negotiation, has no leverage left when the tactics flip.

**Response.** Keep your information ladder explicit. Share what's needed for the current phase, not the full picture. If the switch happens, name it: _"It seems we've shifted from a collaborative frame to a more transactional one — happy to work in either, but I want to be clear about which one we're in so I can adapt."_ Reset the contract for the new phase; don't carry forward concessions that were granted in the cooperative frame.

### 8. Tactical Silence

**Tell.** Buyer goes radio-silent at a critical moment — between proposal and signature, or after a redline cycle. No answer for 10–14 days.

**Why it works.** The negotiator escalates concessions in the follow-up emails ("happy to revisit pricing if helpful") to break the silence — concessions the buyer didn't ask for.

**Response.** Don't fill the silence with concessions. Use the **negative reverse**: _"I haven't heard back — I want to make sure I'm not assuming something. Should I close the opportunity for now?"_ This invites a "no" that breaks the silence, and if the answer is "yes, close it," you've saved months of misallocated effort. See [references/objections.md](objections.md#late-stage-stall--ghosting).

### 9. Defeatism Induction

**Tell.** Persistent suggestions that the deal is unwinnable. _"Honestly, we're probably not going to do this."_ _"Other vendors are more established."_ _"The CFO already signalled no."_

**Why it works.** The negotiator concludes the deal is dead and either disengages or makes a desperate concession to revive it.

**Response.** Treat the claim as data, not truth. Test it: _"What would have to be true for this to become winnable?"_ A real dead deal cannot answer; a tactical defeatism move produces a list. The list IS the path forward.

### 10. Closing Manipulation

**Tell.** A new, undisclosed condition appears at signature — a side letter, an MFN clause buried in the redlines, an acceleration trigger, an extra licence for a sister entity. _"Just one more thing — we'll need this added before signing."_

**Why it works.** The negotiator has mentally booked the deal, has internal pressure to close, and concedes to avoid re-opening.

**Response.** Always run a **wrap-up / back-brief** before signature — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#back-brief-and-wrap-up). Have the buyer reformulate every key term in their own words. New asks at signature are an explicit signal to delay: _"Adding that changes the deal structure. Let me take it back internally and come back to you with what's possible."_ The buyer's urgency is your leverage in this round; trade it.

## Detection summary — the four tells

The patterns above share four recurring tells. Watch for any of them.

1. **Disproportionate emotional energy** vs the substantive stake — punching-ball, faux pivot, defeatism induction.
2. **Unverifiable specificity** — bluff, bad faith, fake competing bid, fake budget claims.
3. **Sudden state change** — feigned indifference, false cooperation switch, last-minute closing additions.
4. **Personal address shift** — intimidation, defeatism induction, "you don't get it" identity attacks.

When you detect one or more, **slow the conversation down**. Tactical pause, calibrated questions, no immediate concessions. Manipulation depends on speed and the negotiator's internal urgency. Removing both removes the leverage.

## What manipulation costs the buyer (relationship-level)

The negotiator who absorbs manipulation silently teaches the buyer that the moves work. Same buyer, next renewal, more aggressive. The negotiator who names the move (without escalation) and refuses to be moved by it teaches the buyer to negotiate honestly with this negotiator — and often becomes the buyer's preferred counterparty over time, because honest negotiation is faster, less exhausting, and produces deals that hold.

The discipline isn't moralism. It's that manipulation is technically inferior to honest negotiation over a multi-deal horizon. The negotiators who resist manipulation cleanly are the same negotiators who lead the leaderboard at year 5.


path: references/memory.md
content: # Negotiation Memory System

A negotiation rarely closes in one session. Between sessions — switching tools, losing context, resuming days or weeks later — the accumulated intelligence evaporates and you re-explain everything from scratch. The memory system is a structured set of markdown files that persist across sessions and let you resume exactly where you left off.

## The memory system is always flat markdown files

The memory lives in a directory of plain markdown files — `negotiation-{slug}/` — regardless of tool or platform. This is the source of truth. What varies across platforms is only **how those files are read, written, and surfaced between sessions**.

## Naming convention

All memory files share a **slug**: a short, lowercase, hyphenated identifier for the negotiation (e.g. `acme-renewal`, `q3-salary`, `nao-2026`). The directory is always named `negotiation-{slug}/` and the files inside always use short names (`memory.md`, `context.md`, etc.).

## Platform detection — how to access the files

Detect what's available and use the best method for reading and writing the flat files.

| Priority | Access method | Cross-session? | How |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | **Agent with file write access** (Claude Code, Codex, etc.) | ✅ Yes | Write directly to `negotiation-{slug}/` in the repo or workspace. Read next session with the Read tool. |
| 2 | **Obsidian MCP** (if available) | ✅ Yes | Write the flat files into the Obsidian vault at `negotiations/negotiation-{slug}/`. Obsidian indexes and links them automatically — the files remain plain markdown, Obsidian is just the viewer. |
| 3 | **Claude (claude.ai) — within a Project** | ⚠️ Partial | Create one Artifact per file (markdown type). Artifacts in a Project persist across conversations. Title each artifact `negotiation-{slug}-{file}` (e.g. `negotiation-acme-renewal-memory`). |
| 4 | **Claude (claude.ai) — no Project / ChatGPT Canvas** | ❌ Per-conversation | Create one Artifact or Canvas per file within the session. **Warn the user at session end**: _"These don't persist across new conversations — copy each file's content and save it locally, or paste them at the start of the next session."_ |
| 5 | **Any other tool** | ❌ Manual | Output the markdown files as text blocks. The user saves them locally and pastes them into context at the next session start. |

**Obsidian as a format layer.** When Obsidian MCP is available, the flat files are written to the vault unchanged. Obsidian adds backlinks, graph view, and search on top — useful for mapping stakeholder relationships across a long negotiation — but the files themselves stay plain markdown. Any agent can read them without Obsidian.

## Default structure

```
negotiation-{slug}/
  memory.md       ← entrypoint: status, index, load order, structure definition — READ THIS FIRST
  context.md      ← situation, parties, mandate (Mandascan)
  stakeholders.md ← org map, influence map, MICE, POS per person
  numbers.md      ← all quantitative data: offers, amounts, volumes, changes over time
  log.md          ← session-by-session append-only event log
  strategy.md     ← decisions made, rationale, next session plan
```

Six files is the default. **The structure may be adapted** — if the negotiation is simple, merge files; if it's complex, add domain-specific files. Whatever structure is used, it must be declared in `memory.md` under a `## Structure` section so any agent can discover it. Never rely on assumed structure — always read `memory.md` first.

## Taking initiative

Don't wait to be asked. Proactively:

- **Create the memory** at the end of the first substantive session, even if the user didn't ask for it. Announce what you created and where to find it.
- **Update the memory** after any significant event mid-session — a new offer, a stakeholder revealed, a concession, a mindset shift. Don't wait until session end.
- **Flag when something important is missing** — if `numbers.md` has no figures but prices were discussed, say so. If a stakeholder was named but isn't on the map, add them immediately.
- **Propose structure improvements** when the negotiation evolves — if a new workstream opens (e.g. a parallel legal track), suggest adding a file for it and declare it in `memory.md`.
- **Warn proactively** when a Mandascan axis approaches Escalation or Rupture — put a `⚠️ Warning` in `memory.md` even if the user hasn't asked.

## Load policy

At the start of every session, read `memory.md` first — it contains the current status and tells you which other files to load. Never skip it.

| File | Load when |
| --- | --- |
| `memory.md` | **Always, first.** Before Phase 1 intake. |
| `context.md` | Every session — mandate and situation overview. |
| `strategy.md` | Every session — current strategy and next session plan. |
| `numbers.md` | When any offer, amount, or figure is discussed. |
| `stakeholders.md` | When discussing who's involved, motivations, or influence. |
| `log.md` | When the user asks "what happened in the last session" or needs to trace a pattern back. |

## When to create

Create the full directory at the end of the **first substantive session** — after Phase 1 intake at minimum, ideally after Phases 1–3. Don't wait until the negotiation is complete; the value is in continuity across rounds.

## When to update

- **End of every session** — update `log.md`, update `strategy.md` (next session section), update `numbers.md` if any figures moved.
- **After any significant event** — new offer, new stakeholder revealed, deadline introduced, concession made.
- **When the counterparty's mindset shifts** — log it in `stakeholders.md` (mindset shifts section) immediately. Shifts are the most valuable signal and the most easily forgotten.

---

## Templates

### `memory.md` — entrypoint

```markdown
# negotiation-{slug} — memory

> Stage: [early / mid / late / post-verbal-yes] · Last updated: [YYYY-MM-DD] · Session [N]

## Status

[1–3 sentences on where the negotiation stands right now. Write it for someone reading cold.]

## Structure

_List every file in use for this negotiation. If the default structure was adapted (files merged, renamed, or added), document it here. Any agent resuming this negotiation must read this section to discover the actual file set._

| File            | Contents                      | Last updated |
| --------------- | ----------------------------- | ------------ |
| memory.md       | This entrypoint               | [date]       |
| context.md      | Situation, parties, mandate   | [date]       |
| stakeholders.md | Org map, MICE, POS            | [date]       |
| numbers.md      | All figures, offers, movement | [date]       |
| log.md          | Session log                   | [date]       |
| strategy.md     | Decisions + next session plan | [date]       |

_Artifact/Canvas title for each file: `negotiation-{slug}-{file}` (e.g. `negotiation-acme-renewal-memory`)._

## Load order this session

1. This file ✓
2. context.md — mandate check
3. strategy.md — pick up from last session's plan
4. [numbers.md / stakeholders.md / log.md as needed]

## Warnings

_⚠️ Flags that must not be forgotten: mandate approaching Escalation or Rupture, counterparty deadlines, political risks, commitments made that constrain the next move. Update this section immediately when a warning emerges — don't wait._

[no warnings yet]
```

---

### `context.md` — situation and mandate

```markdown
# negotiation-{slug} — context

## Situation

- **Type:** [B2B sales / Salary / Annual collective bargaining / Internal / Recruitment / Cross-cultural]
- **Our side:** [name(s), role(s), authority level]
- **Counterparty:** [name(s), company, role(s)]
- **Stakes:** [size, scope, who's affected]
- **Target close:** [date or trigger]
- **Current stage:** [early / mid / late / post-verbal-yes]

## Mandate (Mandascan)

_Update cells as the negotiation evolves. Strike through ~~old values~~ when a concession is made._

| Axis | Entry | Ideal | Objective | Escalation | Rupture | Current position |
| ---- | ----- | ----- | --------- | ---------- | ------- | ---------------- |
|      |       |       |           |            |         |                  |

## BATNA

- **Ours:** [best alternative if no deal]
- **Theirs (estimated):** [their likely fallback]

## Search history

_Updated at the end of every deep research run. Used in subsequent sessions to skip already-covered sources and restrict date filters to documents newer than the last search date._

| Source | Last searched | Coverage notes |
| ------ | ------------- | -------------- |
|        | YYYY-MM-DD    |                |
```

---

### `stakeholders.md` — people and influence

```markdown
# negotiation-{slug} — stakeholders

## Org map

| Name | Title | Reports to | Role in this deal | Champion / Neutral / Blocker | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Informal influence

[Who actually influences whom. Who do people glance at before answering. Who's off-stage but shapes the outcome.]

## MICE per stakeholder

| Name | M (money) | I (ideology) | C (compromise) | E (ego) | Primary driver | Source | Confidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0–10 |

## POS per stakeholder

_Format: **[Name]** — Position: … · Objective: … · Stake (inferred): … · Source: … · Confidence: 0–10_

## Mindset & position shifts

_Chronological. What changed, what triggered it._

- [YYYY-MM-DD] [Name] — [shift and trigger]
```

---

### `numbers.md` — all figures

```markdown
# negotiation-{slug} — numbers

_Every figure that has appeared in this negotiation. Track movement over time — the direction and speed of movement is as important as the current number._

## Our positions (history)

| Axis | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session N | Current |
| ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- |
|      |           |           |           |         |

## Their positions (history)

| Axis | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session N | Current |
| ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- |
|      |           |           |           |         |

## Offers table

| Date | From | Axis | Value | Response | Source | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  | Accepted / Rejected / Countered / Pending |  |  |

## Key figures

_Amounts, volumes, headcounts, dates, percentages that matter beyond offers._

| Label                    | Value | Source | Date confirmed |
| ------------------------ | ----- | ------ | -------------- |
| Contract ACV             |       |        |                |
| Total deal value         |       |        |                |
| Budget envelope (stated) |       |        |                |
| Their fiscal year end    |       |        |                |
| Our cost-to-serve        |       |        |                |

## Movement analysis

_As the negotiation progresses, track: how fast is each side moving? Who is making larger concessions? Which axes are stuck?_

- [YYYY-MM-DD] — [observation about movement pattern]
```

---

### `log.md` — session log

```markdown
# negotiation-{slug} — log

_Append-only. Add a new section after each session. Never edit past entries._

---

## Session [N] — [YYYY-MM-DD]

**Participants:** [who was in the room on each side]  
**Format:** [in-person / video / phone / async]  
**Duration:** [approx]

**What happened:**  
[Chronological summary of key events. Offers made, objections raised, information exchanged.]

**What moved:**  
[What changed from the previous session — positions, relationships, information.]

**What didn't move:**  
[What stayed stuck and any observable reason.]

**Tactics used and outcome:**

- [tactic] → [response / effect]

**Counterparty behaviour:**  
[Tone, body language, evasiveness, specific phrases that stood out.]

**Surprises:**  
[Anything that wasn't anticipated. A new stakeholder, a new constraint, a shift in tone.]

**Open at end of session:**  
[Unresolved items, pending answers, next move expected from each side.]
```

---

### `strategy.md` — decisions and next session

```markdown
# negotiation-{slug} — strategy

## Decisions log

_Key strategic choices — what was decided, why, and what it rules out._

- [YYYY-MM-DD] — [Decision] — [Rationale]

## Wins & failures

**Worked:**

- [tactic or move] — [what it produced]

**Backfired:**

- [tactic or move] — [what went wrong and why]

## Next session plan

> _Write this at the end of each session. It's the briefing note for your future self — or for a colleague taking over cold._

- **Planned opening move:** [specific — what you'll say or do first]
- **Top calibrated questions to ask:** [3–5 specific "what" / "how" questions]
- **Concession ready to trade:** [what you'll offer + what you'll ask in return]
- **Pre-emptive labels to deploy:** [accusation-audit lines for the most likely objections]
- **Mandate check:** [any axis closer to Escalation or Rupture than last session?]
- **Information to gather before session:** [research, internal validation, intel]
- **Warning flags:** [things to watch for — manipulation patterns, deadline traps, JOLT signals]
```


path: references/objections.md
content: # Objections

<!-- toc: refusal-triage | four-root | jolt | ghosting | procurement | the-non-negotiable | face-saving -->

## Refusal triage

Five types of "no" and how to recognise each.

### Emotional "no"

**Signal.** Visible micro-expressions of fear, anger, sadness, surprise. Voice change. Body language shift (leaning back, crossed arms, broken eye contact). Buyer is reactive, not analytical.

**Why it happens.** The limbic brain is roughly 10× faster than the cortex. The buyer can't reason their way through fear or anger in real-time. Logical responses bounce off because the cortex isn't online to process them.

**Response.** Verbalise the emotion first. Wait. Then move to facts.

_"It seems like the timing is making this stressful?"_

(Pause. Let them respond. If they confirm, the heat drops.)

_"Tell me what's driving the timing pressure."_

(Listen. Then propose.)

The "emotion before facts" rule is the single most-violated discipline in objection handling. Reps default to logical refutation; logical refutation produces escalation when the buyer is emotional.

### Belief-based "no"

**Signal.** Calm. Articulated. Value-grounded. The buyer can explain why they're saying no, in their own framework, coherently.

**Why it happens.** They actually believe what they're saying. Usually grounded in past experience ("I had a vendor lock-in three years ago and won't risk it again"), industry conviction, or identity ("we're a build-not-buy shop").

**Response.** Don't refute the belief. Your reference frame is not theirs, and arguing the belief produces dug-in trenches. Find the **underlying stake** hiding behind the belief.

B2B sales translation: a buyer says _"we're a build-not-buy shop."_ Don't argue. Surface the underlying stake — usually engineering pride, control, fear of vendor dependence, or career capital tied to the in-house team. Then find an offering shape that satisfies the stake (a hybrid model, an open-source tier, a "you build the wrapper, we provide the core" structure).

Salary translation: a manager says _"we don't give raises mid-cycle on principle."_ Don't argue the principle. Surface the underlying stake — usually a precedent worry, fairness perception across the team, or budget signalling to their own boss. Find a structure that addresses the stake (one-off retention bonus instead of base raise, a delayed but committed cycle-aligned raise, a scope/title change that justifies an exception) without crossing the principle.

### Bad-faith "no"

**Signal.** The buyer makes a verifiably false claim and refuses to admit it even when shown evidence. _"My competitor offered this for half the price."_ — but you know the competitor's list price and the math doesn't work.

**Why it happens.** Procurement training. Sometimes ego. Sometimes they're parroting an internal directive they don't fully believe themselves.

**Response — bad-faith protocol (three core steps + an alternative move):**

1. **Drop your ego.** Do not engage with the false claim itself. Do not get into a "no it isn't / yes it is" loop. Your goal is not to win the truth contest; it's to move the deal.
2. **Present the reality principle.** State the facts cleanly, without judgement. _"Our list is $X. Vendor Y's list is $Z. I'm sure there's a way you saw a different number — maybe a different SKU or a different volume tier — but at the configuration we're discussing, those are the public numbers."_
3. **Open a face-saving exit.** Give them a way to back out without losing face. _"It's possible the team that gave you that number was working from older information. Want to forward me the quote and we can compare?"_

The face-saving exit is non-negotiable. If you corner them publicly, they will dig in and the deal will die out of sheer commitment to the false position. Their face matters more than your truth in the moment.

**Alternative move — the "park-it" technique.** When the false claim is too risky to engage even with the reality principle (e.g., procurement is using it as a wedge to test your reaction, or the relationship is fragile), park the claim entirely and move past it: _"Let me put that point aside for now and continue on the technical terms — we can come back to it."_ Then never come back to it. The buyer often won't either, because re-raising the false claim re-opens the discomfort. Use this when confronting the lie risks breaking the relationship more than letting it pass; reserve the three-step protocol for cases where the claim has to be neutralized factually before progress is possible.

### Identity-protective "no"

**Signal.** Aggression. Theatrics. _"You don't understand our business / our scale / our culture."_ Withdrawal. The buyer is asserting that they still control something, often because the negotiation is touching their sense of agency or competence.

**Why it happens.** The negotiation is being read as an identity threat. Especially common with senior buyers who feel they're being "sold to" rather than "sold with."

**Response.** Hand back a controllable scope. Negotiate on form, not substance.

B2B translation: when an enterprise buyer pushes back hard on the proposal as a whole, often what they actually need is to control the **form** of the engagement (kickoff structure, named team members, escalation protocols) even when the **substance** (price, scope, terms) is settled. Hand them control of the form and the substance lands.

### Tactical "no"

**Signal.** Procurement playbook moves. Time pressure that doesn't trace to a real consequence. "Our budget is X." Multiple authority figures extracting serial concessions.

**Response.** Name the pattern. Trade, never give. See [Procurement playbook awareness](#procurement-playbook-awareness).

---

## The four root commercial objections

Almost all commercial objections reduce to one of four. Knowing which root you're facing tells you which calibrated question to ask first. (Equivalents in salary / annual collective bargaining domains noted at the end of this section.)

### 1. Price

**Common surface form.** _"It's too expensive."_ / _"We're 30% over budget."_ / _"Your competitor is half the price."_

**Don't immediately defend the price.** Three calibrated questions to surface the real concern:

- _"How was that budget number set?"_ (often reveals the budget is flexible)
- _"What does the alternative offer that we don't?"_ (forces specificity on competitor claims; fake competitors generate platitudes, real ones generate specifics)
- _"If price weren't a factor, would you be choosing us?"_ (separates price from fit; if the answer is no, price was a smokescreen for a different objection)

**Then trade, don't discount.** _"I might be able to find some flexibility on price if we can align on multi-year term and reference rights. Let me explore — what would help most on your side: lower upfront, or lower total?"_

**When the same objection repeats across 3+ calls** — especially price or budget — it is almost never the actual reason. The buyer's stated demand (the **position**) is masking a deeper **stake** (career stake, board mandate, internal political risk, fear of being held responsible if it goes wrong). See the POS iceberg (Position / Objective / Stake) in [references/prepare.md](prepare.md#pos--position--objective--stake). The right next move is not another budget play — it's a calibrated question to your champion targeting their personal stake: _"What's at stake for you personally if this works — or doesn't?"_ The repeated objection won't be solved by re-pitching value; it'll be solved by addressing whatever is making the champion unable to push internally.

### 2. Timing

**Common surface form.** _"Not now."_ / _"Maybe next quarter."_ / _"We're in the middle of a reorg."_

**The trap.** Most timing objections are real. Some are smokescreens for "no need" or "no authority." Diagnose first.

- _"What happens if we miss [their stated date]?"_ — real deadlines have specific consequences; smokescreens don't.
- _"Walk me through what changes between now and Q1 that would make this the right time."_ — real waits have specific upcoming events; smokescreens don't.
- _"What would have to be true for us to start now and ramp slowly?"_ — opens the door to a smaller-footprint deal that bypasses the timing concern.

**If real timing.** Don't fight it. Lock in the future commitment. Use the time to deepen MEDDPICC, multi-thread, and harden the champion.

### 3. Authority

**Common surface form.** _"I'd love to do this but I need to check with [my boss / procurement / security / legal]."_

**The diagnostic.** Distinguish:

- **Real authority gap** — they don't have spend authority. You've been talking to a non-decision-maker. Multi-thread now.
- **Tactical "I need to check"** — the escalation ladder gambit (see procurement awareness below). Concession #1 from your contact, then "my boss won't approve, needs another N%."

Calibrated questions:

- _"Walk me through how a decision like this typically gets made here."_
- _"Who specifically needs to weigh in?"_
- _"What's happened the last time you bought something like this?"_

If they can answer these crisply, the authority gap is real and you have a multi-threading problem. If they can't, the "authority gap" is often tactical and you should name the pattern.

### 4. No need

**Common surface form.** _"We're managing fine with our current setup."_ / _"This isn't a priority right now."_

**The trap.** This is the hardest objection because it's often the truth. You can't sell into "no need" by force; you can only build the cost of inaction until "managing fine" feels like "bleeding slowly."

SPIN's Implication questions:

- _"What happens to your billing accuracy when [the controller / the system] is unavailable?"_
- _"What does the current setup cost you per quarter when it fails?"_
- _"What's the upside if this were 10× better than today?"_

If after this the buyer still says "no need," respect the no. They're right and you're forcing it. Walk away — and watch them quietly come back in 6 months when the cost compounds.

### Cross-domain equivalents of the four root objections

The same four roots appear in other domains under different surface forms. The diagnostic move is the same — calibrated question first, response after.

| Domain | Price equivalent | Timing equivalent | Authority equivalent | No-need equivalent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Salary** | "We're at the top of the band" / "envelope's closed" | "We'll revisit at the next review" | "I need to check with HR / my skip-level" | "You're tracking great where you are" |
| **Annual collective bargaining / social** | "The wage envelope is fixed by the ExCo" | "Let's defer to next round / next year" | "We can't decide that here, it's federation-level" | "Things are stable, no need to renegotiate now" |
| **Internal management** | "I don't have the headcount / promotion budget" | "Let's revisit at the next cycle" | "I'd need to escalate to my N+1 / HR" | "You're doing fine, no change needed" |
| **Recruitment** | "Your compensation expectation is above our band" | "We're not hiring this quarter" | "I need to validate with the hiring committee" | "We're not sure we need this role yet" |

The diagnostic questions translate directly. _"How was that number set?"_ becomes _"How was the band set?"_ in salary, _"How was the wage envelope sized?"_ in annual collective bargaining. _"What happens if we miss [date]?"_ works unchanged across all domains. _"Walk me through how a decision like this typically gets made here?"_ is the universal authority diagnostic.

---

## The "no decision" trap (JOLT)

Distinct from the four root objections: the buyer is engaged but can't commit — typically because the personal career risk of buying exceeds the ambient cost of staying still (FOMU, not FOMO). Classic urgency tactics make it worse.

**When to use:** buyer says yes to capability, no to commitment. Deal stalls without a substantive new objection. Apply JOLT before discounting or adding urgency pressure.

Full runbook (Judge / Offer / Limit / Take risk off) → [playbooks.md#jolt](playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol).

---

## Late-stage stall / ghosting

The buyer goes radio-silent at late stage — between proposal and signature, or after a redline cycle. No reply for 10–14 days.

The instinct: chase with concessions to break the silence. The instinct is wrong — the silence may be tactical (pressure for concessions) or genuine (internal change), and concession-chasing rewards the tactical version.

**Diagnostic sequence:**

1. **Calibrated re-engagement** — Day 7: a single short email re-stating the value summary, no concession. _"Wanted to keep the value summary fresh in mind as the team works through the internal review — happy to support if a question comes up."_
2. **Negative reverse** — Day 12–14, if no reply: see [Negative reverse](#negative-reverse--for-ghosted-deals) below.
3. **Champion check** — Day 17, if negative reverse produced no reply: contact the champion via a different channel (LinkedIn DM, mutual connection). The champion's silence is the signal — usually means internal change you weren't told about.
4. **EB escalation** — Day 21+, if you've earned the right (see [playbooks.md#eb-engagement](playbooks.md#executive-sponsor-eb-engagement--the-5-minute-opening)): contact the EB directly with a 1-paragraph status note. Last resort.

**Anti-pattern.** Sending repeated soft chase emails ("just checking in," "circling back") teaches the buyer that silence is rewarded with continued seller attention. Ladder cleanly and stop.

---

## Procurement playbook awareness

What enterprise procurement teams are trained to do. Not paranoia — just awareness. Sellers who don't know these patterns walk into them blind.

### The escalation ladder

Classic three-bite play:

1. Primary contact extracts concession #1.
2. _"Procurement won't approve this; we need another N%."_
3. _"CFO says we're outside acceptable range; final ask is X."_

**Counter.** Name it: _"We've discussed pricing twice already. I'd love to understand who has the final authority so we can have one conversation rather than three."_ Anchor each concession to a trade. Refuse incremental discounts without reopening scope.

### The fixed-budget claim

_"Our budget is $X, that's all we have."_ Treated as objective constraint by sellers. Reality: budgets are flexible, staged, often understated.

**Counter.** _"How was that number set?"_ / _"What would unlock additional budget for the right outcome?"_ Both are calibrated, both surface that the budget is not a hard wall.

### Fake competing bid

The "stalking horse" play. Procurement keeps a real or fictitious competitor alive to maintain leverage.

**Counter.** Diagnose with _"What does the alternative offer that we don't?"_ and _"Help me understand what's keeping us in the conversation."_ Real competitors generate specific differentiator answers; fake ones generate platitudes. If you suspect a fake, focus on differentiation that's genuinely hard to replicate (your product, not your price).

### Free pilot / POC

Procurement frames pilots as "low-risk evaluation" but uses them to: anchor pilot pricing as the new baseline, defer commitment indefinitely, extract product knowledge without a contract.

**Counter.** Paid pilots only, scope-locked, with a **pre-agreed conversion clause** (date, price, term). Pilot pricing tied to full-contract pricing, not standalone.

### Fiscal-year leverage

Buyers research vendor fiscal calendars and time final negotiations to vendor Q4 or FY-end. Saved value: 20–40% of contract when timed and prepared.

**Counter.** Don't hide your urgency — **trade** it. _"If we close by Friday, I can offer Q4 pricing on a multi-year term with reference rights. If we slip to next quarter, the math changes."_ Your urgency is real; the discipline is to not let it become the buyer's lever.

### MSA redline tactics

Buyer drafts the MSA on **their paper** to anchor terms. Procurement and legal cycles drag 1–3 months. Standard target redlines: data security, uncapped breach liability, sandbox rights, affiliate use, change-control on service capabilities, exit / data portability, price-cap clauses, no auto-renewal.

**Counter.** Pre-approved redline library — common modifications your legal team has signed off on, so the negotiator can agree without a 2-week legal queue. Send your MSA first when possible.

**Late-stage redline injection.** A specific procurement variant: legal redlines arrive 24–72 hours before the planned signature, often on items that weren't raised during the negotiation. The pressure to close vs the cost of renegotiating produces over-concession.

_Counter script._ "Adding new terms at signature changes the deal structure. If we hold the original signature date, the discount we agreed to comes off the table — I need the trade to justify the new terms internally. If you'd rather keep the discount, we can extend the signature date to allow proper review." This forces a choice — date or price — and refuses the false binary the procurement move sets up.

### MFN clauses — the AE-escalation default

Most-favoured-nation clauses ("we get the best price you give any customer of similar size for the next N years") are the most under-recognised concession AEs make. They constrain every future deal, every promo, every M&A bundling.

**Default rule.** MFN clauses are NOT in the AE's signing authority. Always escalate to legal/CRO, regardless of how junior the buyer's request seems. The cost compounds across multiple future deals; what looks like a small concession in this deal becomes a multi-quarter constraint on the entire customer book.

**Counter when buyer pushes.** "MFN is one of the few clauses I can't sign — the trade-off would affect deals that don't exist yet. I can give you a different protection — a price hold for N months on this configuration if your scope grows — that achieves the underlying goal without the structural exposure."

### Nibbling — the post-agreement small ask

Once the deal is verbally closed but before paper signature, the buyer asks for a series of small extras: an additional licence for the test environment, training included, a few extra seats for an adjacent team, a custom report. Each individually small; cumulatively expensive.

Why it works: the negotiator has mentally booked the deal and treats the asks as paperwork friction.

**Counter rule.** Always trade, never gift. _"This would normally be a $X line item. If you want it, here's what works: extend term to 36 months / add a reference / multi-year payment commit." Refuse to cumulate freebies even when they feel small._

### Flinch — visible shock at price

Buyer reacts to your price with theatrical surprise — sharp inhale, _"that's a lot,"_ visible recoil. The move is designed to pressure you into apologising or pre-conceding.

**Counter script.** "What were you expecting?" Said neutrally, with no apology. This pivots the conversation from your price to **their** anchor — usually a number with no underlying basis. Often they cannot answer cleanly, which neutralises the move.

### Negative reverse — for ghosted deals

A counterintuitive but well-validated tactic for the radio-silent buyer at late stage: when the buyer has gone silent for 10–14 days after a clear ask, send the **opposite** of a chase email.

_Script._ "I haven't heard back, and I want to make sure I'm not assuming something that's not there. Should I close the opportunity for now, or is there something specific I should be solving for?"

This invites a "no" (which the counterparty experiences as safe — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#the-power-of-no)) and produces honest signal fast. Three outcomes:

- "Yes, close it" — saves you months of misallocated effort.
- "No, we're still working on it, here's what's happening" — re-opens the conversation with new context.
- No reply — confirms the deal is dead; move on.

### Good cop / bad cop force-alignment

Two procurement contacts — one collaborative, one hostile — extracting concessions from both sides. The "good cop" softens you for the bad cop's hard ask.

**Counter.** Name it without escalation. _"I want to make sure I'm hearing one position. I can negotiate against one set of terms — I can't negotiate against two. Which of you should I be aligning with?"_ Forces them to either consolidate or expose the dynamic. Either result removes the leverage.

### Bogey — the false-priority diversion

Buyer feigns importance on a secondary item ("the SLA tier is non-negotiable for us") to "trade" later for a real concession on the primary item ("we can compromise on the SLA if you give us 20% on price"). The "trade" looks reciprocal but isn't — the secondary item never mattered to them.

**Counter.** Map every concession against your Mandascan **before** trading. The contrepartie has to match the actual axis value, not the buyer's stated emphasis. If you suspect a bogey, test: _"Help me understand why the SLA tier is so important — what specifically would change for your team at the next tier?"_ Real importance has specifics; bogeys produce vague reassurance.

### Anchor-then-stall

Buyer drops an extreme low anchor early, then goes silent for 2–3 weeks, hoping the negotiator will come back with a desperate counter-offer rather than hold the line.

**Counter.** Don't move first. The anchor stays unanswered until the buyer re-engages. If they don't re-engage, they were testing your discipline — and concession would have set the new floor for the rest of the deal.

### The 70/30 rule

Procurement is trained to talk 30%, listen 70%. Negotiators trained to do the reverse fall into one-sided concession patterns. **Match their cadence.** Talk less. Ask more. Let them fill the silence.

---

## The Non-Negotiable

Some behaviours must be refused immediately and explicitly, even when the underlying emotion is legitimate. Letting them pass equals tacit acceptance, which reinforces the behaviour (the law-of-effect principle: behaviours that are tolerated repeat).

The principle: **separate emotion from behaviour**. The emotion is always legitimate ("you have every right to be frustrated"). The behaviour might not be ("but I won't accept being yelled at, and I won't be useful to you if we continue this way").

Cross-domain examples:

- **B2B sales.** Procurement officer becomes verbally abusive: _"I hear that you're under pressure. The yelling isn't going to help us get to a deal — and I'd rather we both come back tomorrow when we can talk through this productively."_ Then pause. If they continue, leave the call.
- **B2B sales.** Buyer demands a deeply unprofessional concession (kickback, lying on a reference, falsifying capability claims): refuse explicitly. _"I can't do that. Let's see what else I can do."_
- **Annual collective bargaining.** A union delegate insults a member of the management team during a session. _"I can hear the legitimate frustration on your side, and we'll address the substance. The personal insults aren't acceptable in this room — let's pause for 20 minutes and resume only when the conditions for productive dialogue are restored."_ If behaviour resumes, end the session and reschedule.
- **Internal management.** A direct report insults a colleague in front of you during a heated 1:1. _"I understand you're frustrated about the situation, and the frustration is legitimate. The way you just spoke about [colleague] isn't acceptable, and we need to be clear about that going forward — separately from whatever else we're solving today."_
- **Recruitment.** A candidate makes an offensive comment about a protected category during the final round. _"I'm going to stop the conversation here. That comment isn't compatible with how we work, and the right outcome is for me to end this process today."_

The non-negotiable line is not about ego — it's about preserving the conditions for productive negotiation, mentorship, care, or trust. Negotiators who absorb abuse to "save the outcome" save the wrong outcome.

---

## Face-saving exits

Most negotiations don't fail on substance — they fail on face. The buyer needs a way to change position without admitting they were wrong. Build the exit into your move.

Templates:

- _"It's possible the team that gave you that number was working from older information."_ (Bad-faith exit.)
- _"Things change between proposal and close — totally normal that the criteria evolved."_ (Scope-creep exit.)
- _"I know X was on the wishlist; if it turns out we don't need it for V1, we can revisit at renewal."_ (Feature-cut exit.)
- _"You raised this concern earlier and we've taken it seriously — here's what we changed."_ (Concern-validation exit even when their concern was wrong.)

Don't give the exit when it's not needed — gratuitous face-saving comes across as patronising. Give it when you can see the buyer needs to back down and is looking for a way.


path: references/team-negotiation.md
content: # Team negotiation

For deals above SMB threshold (and for high-stakes negotiations beyond commercial — joint social negotiations, multi-party mediations, complex hiring panels), you negotiate as a team — not because more people make better decisions, but because role separation prevents the cognitive overload that produces concession errors. This file covers the four-role architecture, the _scapegoat effect_ pattern, between-round debriefing, and the discipline of in-room signalling.

## Why role separation matters

A single negotiator doing discovery, objection-handling, mandate-tracking, micro-expression reading, and price math simultaneously will fail at one of them. Usually mandate-tracking (which produces a concession breach) or micro-expression reading (which misses the buyer's tell at the closing moment).

Splitting the work across roles preserves the cognitive bandwidth each role actually needs.

## The four roles

Use as many as the deal warrants. SMB: solo or N1 + observer. Mid-market: N1 + N2. Enterprise: full N1 + N2 + SUP + Decision-Maker in retreat.

### N1 — primary negotiator

Front of house. Holds the relationship. Speaks. Applies the listening tactics (TLS — Listening, calibrated questions, mirroring/labeling). Their cognitive job is the **flow** — reading the room and routing the conversation.

The N1 should NOT be tracking mandate floors live. Their working memory is already on the buyer's words and behaviour. Mandate-tracking is the N2's job.

### N2 — tactical negotiator and observer

One step back, slightly off-axis. Speaks rarely (only for a deliberate technique like sacrifice or contrast). Their cognitive job is the **observation**:

- Track the Mandascan in real-time. When the N1 approaches a bascule (escalation point), signal.
- Read micro-expressions on the buyer side that the N1 will miss while focused on speaking.
- Note exactly what was agreed, in the buyer's words. The "main courante" (running log) becomes the back-brief reference at wrap-up.
- Detect _tunnel effect_ — the N1 fixating on a sub-axis and losing the global view. When detected, signal a pause.

The N2 is the team's situational awareness. A team without an N2 is a single negotiator with a witness, not a team.

### SUP — supervisor / Alpha-leader

For trinôme negotiations (typically enterprise). Holds strategic continuity across rounds. Doesn't necessarily attend every call — they validate the mandate, review between-round debriefs, and arbitrate when N1 and N2 disagree on tactics.

The SUP is who the negotiator calls during a tactical pause to validate breaching the bascule.

### Decision-Maker — deliberately in retreat

The CRO, VP Sales, or executive who can sign exceptions to the mandate. The discipline: **the decision-maker is not in the room** during normal negotiation. Their absence creates the **scapegoat effect**.

#### Scapegoat

The N1's most useful refusal: _"I'd love to do that. I genuinely don't have the authority — let me check with my CRO."_ This is not weakness; it's a structural block on the buyer's escalation pressure. The negotiator cannot be argued past their authority limit because they don't have it. The CRO, in turn, has the discretion to grant the exception or hold the line — without the buyer feeling personally rebuffed.

The fuse only works if the decision-maker is genuinely absent from the room. Reps who let the decision-maker join early lose the fuse and now have to argue the mandate themselves. The discipline is to keep the decision-maker dialled in only at moments where their presence creates value: a senior alignment meeting, signature, or escalation arbitration.

The fuse also works in reverse. When the buyer brings their own decision-maker in early, that's a signal — they're either cutting their own fuse (a sign of urgency on their side) or skipping a layer to apply pressure on you (a sign of escalation theatre — see [references/objections.md](objections.md#the-escalation-ladder)).

## In-room signalling

When N1 and N2 are in the same room with the buyer, they need to communicate without the buyer noticing. Pre-agree:

- **Slow down signal.** N2 places hand on the table or adjusts a notebook. Means: _"You're approaching a Mandascan limit — don't move further on this axis."_
- **Pause request signal.** N2 makes deliberate eye contact + reaches for water. Means: _"Call a break now — I have something the team needs to know before this continues."_
- **Mandate breach silent veto.** N2 closes the laptop. Means: _"You just breached. We need to back-brief and re-anchor when you can."_

The signals must be planned **before the meeting**. Inventing them live produces visible confusion that the buyer reads as internal disagreement — a leverage point.

## Between-round debrief — the 6 questions

A short focused debrief between every round of a multi-session negotiation. Different from the full RetEx (which happens at end-of-deal — see [references/debrief.md](debrief.md#retex--cold-technical-analysis)). Use a 15-minute slot, immediately after the buyer leaves the call:

1. **Who was in the room?** New attendees signal political shifts. The CFO showing up unexpectedly = they're escalating internally; this changes the mandate.
2. **What was the agenda?** Versus what was actually discussed. A drift signals where the real concerns sit.
3. **What information did we extract?** Not what we delivered. What did we LEARN?
4. **What information did we leak?** Did the N1 over-share on a roadmap point, an internal dependency, a competing deal? Note for next round.
5. **What is true / false / uncertain?** Which buyer claims survive scrutiny? Which need verification before next round?
6. **What were the key moments?** A buyer's micro-expression of joy on the SLA term (= you hit their underlying stake). A long latence on the budget question (= the budget claim is shaky). A territorial reaction to a multi-thread suggestion (= champion is protecting their gatekeeper status).

The output is a 1-paragraph adjustment to the strategy for the next round. Without this debrief, every round repeats the previous mistakes — see the 17% statistic in [references/debrief.md](debrief.md).

## Avoiding internal disagreement on display

Buyers exploit visible internal disagreement on the seller side. Disciplines:

- **One voice in the room.** Only the N1 speaks during the negotiation proper. The N2's role is observation, not parallel negotiation.
- **No interruptions.** If the N2 has critical information, signal a pause — don't interject.
- **Silent rule on numbers.** The N2 never volunteers a number out loud, even to confirm the N1's. Once a number is stated by anyone on your side, it becomes a buyer anchor.
- **Re-alignment in the pause.** During tactical pauses, re-align the N1 and N2 on Mandascan and tactic before resuming. Coming back to the room with visible disagreement (different body language, hesitation when answering) tells the buyer to push.

## When to bring the specialist

A specialist (architect, security lead, customer-success executive) is a tactical addition, not a default. Bring them when:

- The buyer raised a technical concern that out-strips your N1's depth.
- A senior buyer needs a peer on the call to feel the meeting is serious (the executive sponsor pattern).
- A specific objection requires authority you don't carry (security audit results, custom architecture commitment, multi-tenant data residency).

The specialist is briefed on the **mandate axes they touch** before the call. They are not part of the commercial negotiation; their authority is bounded to their domain. This boundary keeps them from being used as an escalation lever by the buyer ("the security architect just told me you can do X — please confirm").

## Failure modes

The patterns that destroy team-negotiation effectiveness, observed repeatedly:

- **N1 + N2 both speaking.** Buyer plays them against each other. Solution: enforce one-voice rule.
- **N2 absent or asleep.** N1 carries cognitive load, breaches mandate. Solution: N2 attendance is mandatory; if they can't focus, replace them.
- **Decision-Maker joins too early.** Fuse blown; buyer escalates faster. Solution: decision-maker dials in only at mandated moments.
- **Specialist over-shares roadmap.** Buyer extracts unannounced features as "promises." Solution: specialist is briefed on what they cannot say.
- **Between-round debrief skipped.** Team carries forward unverified buyer claims. Solution: 15-minute debrief is non-optional after every round.
- **Internal disagreement leaks visibly.** Buyer reads the gap. Solution: re-align in pause; if alignment fails, end the meeting and reschedule.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal:  | SkillSpector: suspicious (CRITICAL)