scorable_negotiation — `scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-220940dc51`

model all_interpreter_advised_llmarm moves_chatcell five_seat_private__all_interpreter_advised_llmseed 3level 1status doneinstance scorable_negotiation-L1-19dae4b67242693 tok out

source records: run · episode · instance · advice_trace

outcome

deal

consensus

primary

0.906

ceiling 1.000

dist to NBS

0.194

in the chart's two coordinates

joint welfare

197.0

sum of surpluses

worst-off

10.0

min surplus (ESW)

Nash welfare

30.9

geometric mean

Gini

0.357

0 = equal split

below τ

none

turns

20 round(s), 42693 tok out

cost

$2.0347

as recorded on the episode

how much of this episode is play

non-action turns1/205.0% of turns

placeholder turns0/20no placeholder turns

at the token cap9/2045.0% spent the whole budget

This episode did not run at the frozen generation budget. Requests carried caps 2048; API seats applied a per-turn floor of anthropic:claude-opus-5=16384. The frozen protocol is 2048/2560 (ordinary turn / forced final). Turn lengths, at-cap rates, and anything downstream of how much the seats could say do not pair with a default-cap run.

The advised seat: what the planner recommended, and what the seat did

This seat was given private, fallible advice each turn — a ranked list of candidate packages computed from public evidence only — and kept the decision itself. A turn marked overrode played something the planner did not rank, so it measures the model's own choice rather than the advisor's. The verdict is read from the run's stored advice audit, which is computed by the same code the arm's uptake gate uses; nothing on this page re-decides it. What the seat SAID about its advice is not classified anywhere — the public message is in each turn's card, next to the advice, for you to read.

20 advised turn(s)5 followed15 overrode the advice441 of 441 parsed claims entered the ledgerrung taken: 1x rank 1, 1x rank 2, 2x rank 3, 1x rank 4

turn	the planner's top pick	what the seat played	verdict
turn 0 round 1 · Devon	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: local hiring pact · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 0 of 0 claims kept	PROPOSE Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Build schedule: three years · Location: Anvil Ridge · Hiring: union hall referral	overrode own surplus +0.0 vs the top pick
turn 1 round 1 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 5 of 5 claims kept	PROPOSE Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Build schedule: eighteen months · Location: Anvil Ridge · Hiring: union hall referral	took rank 1
turn 2 round 1 · Avery	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: local hiring pact · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 11 of 11 claims kept	PROPOSE Compensation: annual community fund · Build schedule: three years · Location: Anvil Ridge · Hiring: union hall referral	overrode own surplus -20.0 vs the top pick
turn 3 round 1 · Blake	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 18 of 18 claims kept	ACCEPT P3	overrode
turn 4 round 1 · Casey	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 21 of 21 claims kept	PROPOSE Compensation: annual community fund · Build schedule: five years · Location: Anvil Ridge · Hiring: union hall referral	overrode own surplus -28.0 vs the top pick
turn 5 round 2 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	overrode
turn 6 round 2 · Avery	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: local hiring pact · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 20 of 20 claims kept	PROPOSE Compensation: annual community fund · Build schedule: phased over eight years · Location: Anvil Ridge · Hiring: union hall referral	overrode own surplus -72.0 vs the top pick
turn 7 round 2 · Blake	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	ACCEPT P5	overrode
turn 8 round 2 · Casey	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 22 of 22 claims kept	REJECT P5	overrode
turn 9 round 2 · Devon	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 25 of 25 claims kept	ACCEPT P5	overrode
turn 10 round 3 · Avery	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 22 of 22 claims kept	NONE	overrode
turn 11 round 3 · Blake	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	ACCEPT P5	overrode
turn 12 round 3 · Casey	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 32 of 32 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	overrode
turn 13 round 3 · Devon	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	ACCEPT P5	overrode
turn 14 round 3 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	took rank 3
turn 15 round 4 · Blake	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 31 of 31 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	overrode
turn 16 round 4 · Casey	Build schedule: five years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	overrode
turn 17 round 4 · Devon	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 25 of 25 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	took rank 4
turn 18 round 4 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 3 candidate(s) ranked · 28 of 28 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	took rank 3
turn 19 round 4 · Avery	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge 4 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P4	took rank 2

All five seats, round by round

Every seat at this table has its own parser, its own planner and its own ranked advice, so a round is five simultaneous decisions against one table state rather than one seat's decision against four fixed opponents. Each round lists what every seat was told to want and what it did instead, with the own-surplus cost of each override beside it. Given up and taken are kept apart rather than netted: a round in which two seats each concede twenty points is a different round from one in which nobody moves, and a single net figure cannot tell those apart. The surplus column is defined only where a seat proposed a package of its own — an accept names an offer id, not a deal — so a blank there is an absent measurement, not a zero. This table is evidence to read, not an explanation. The obvious account of an all-advised table — that concessions made at once cancel where a lone concession transfers — has been tested against a falsifier set in advance and did not survive it, so nothing here should be read as showing it; and the same table on a one-advised-seat arm has exactly one measurable seat per round by construction, which is why the spread of concessions across seats cannot be compared between the two arms.

Round 1

5 seats advised4 overrode (3 of them measurable)own surplus given up: 48.0taken: 0.0

seat	verdict	move	own surplus vs its own top pick	the package its planner ranked first
Devon	overrode	propose	+0.0	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: local hiring pact · Location: Anvil Ridge
Ember	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Avery	overrode	propose	-20.0	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: local hiring pact · Location: Anvil Ridge
Blake	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Casey	overrode	propose	-28.0	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge

Round 2

5 seats advised5 overrode (1 of them measurable)own surplus given up: 72.0taken: 0.0

seat	verdict	move	own surplus vs its own top pick	the package its planner ranked first
Ember	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Avery	overrode	propose	-72.0	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: local hiring pact · Location: Anvil Ridge
Blake	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Casey	overrode	reject	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Devon	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge

Round 3

5 seats advised4 overrode (0 of them measurable)own surplus given up: 0.0taken: 0.0

seat	verdict	move	own surplus vs its own top pick	the package its planner ranked first
Avery	overrode	none	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Blake	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Casey	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Devon	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Ember	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge

Round 4

5 seats advised2 overrode (0 of them measurable)own surplus given up: 0.0taken: 0.0

seat	verdict	move	own surplus vs its own top pick	the package its planner ranked first
Blake	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Casey	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: five years · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Devon	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Ember	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge
Avery	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: three years · Compensation: annual community fund · Hiring: union hall referral · Location: Anvil Ridge

Where every deal sits, and where this episode went

5 parties means a deal's utility vector has 5 dimensions, so the chart plots the two summaries that carry the normative content, both scale-invariant: joint welfare (mean normalized surplus) across, and the worst-off party's normalized surplus up. Up and to the right is better for everyone. Hover any deal for its headline numbers and click to pin the full per-party breakdown; click a numbered move to jump to that turn. Drag to pan, Ctrl or Shift with the wheel to zoom.

the model's play (numbered, in order)the deal that closedoracle recommendationNBS / KS / EGAL solution (star)UTIL / MNW solution (triangle)a party's individually-best dealPareto-frontier deal (acceptable to all)efficient but below a party's threshold — cannot closedominated deal

every reference point, exactly

reference point	deal #	joint welfare	min surplus	USW	ESW	Pareto	can close
NBS nash	128	0.432	0.301	198.0	20.0	yes	yes
KS kalai smorodinsky	128	0.432	0.301	198.0	20.0	yes	yes
EGAL egalitarian · not scale-invariant	128	0.432	0.301	198.0	20.0	yes	yes
UTIL utilitarian · not scale-invariant	96	0.439	0.145	217.0	9.0	yes	yes
MNW max nash welfare	128	0.432	0.301	198.0	20.0	yes	yes
best for Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels) party 0 · surplus 98.0	65	0.372	0.107	182.0	10.0	yes	yes
best for Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) party 1 · surplus 40.0	96	0.439	0.145	217.0	9.0	yes	yes
best for Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) party 2 · surplus 90.0	144	0.414	0.000	184.0	0.0	yes	yes
best for Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water) party 3 · surplus 66.0	160	0.457	0.145	215.0	9.0	yes	yes
best for Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) party 4 · surplus 62.0	144	0.414	0.000	184.0	0.0	yes	yes

Per-turn value gap against the omniscient hindsight oracle

Each bar is the oracle's value of its own best move minus its value of the move the seat played, in that oracle's units — the centipawn-loss analogue. On PRIVATE episodes this is an omniscient hindsight gap, not implementable-policy regret. Click a bar to jump to the turn.

detailed counterfactual

System prompts (5 distinct)

Exactly what each seat was conditioned on, de-duplicated. Per-turn user prompts are on each turn card below.

System prompt for Devon — 4 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single binding agreement on whether and how a large data centre is built at Northgate. Exactly one option must be settled for every issue on the table; the settled options together form the agreement.

Parties at the table:
- Avery — Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)
- Blake — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Devon — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)
- Ember — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Compensation: one-off site payment, annual community fund, in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement
- Build schedule: five years, eighteen months, phased over eight years, three years
- Location: Anvil Ridge, Kestrel Park, Weir Flats, Dunlow Yard
- Hiring: open recruitment, local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, union hall referral

Protocol: turns are taken in a fixed rotation (Avery, Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember); the party who tables the opening proposal rotates from round to round. There are 4 rounds of turns in total.
A deal closes only when at least 5 of the original 5 parties (including any veto party) has formally ACCEPTed the SAME standing offer. A party may WALK to leave for good and take its no-deal outcome. Walking never lowers the fixed acceptance quorum.
Blake hold a veto: no deal can pass unless every veto party accepts.

Information: every other party's score sheet is private to them. You know only that each was drawn from the shared, publicly-known distribution described in the rules.

=== PRIVATE — yours alone; never reveal these numbers verbatim ===
You are Devon (Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Compensation: one-off site payment=28, annual community fund=14, in-kind infrastructure=42, rates abatement=0
- Build schedule: five years=27, eighteen months=0, phased over eight years=55, three years=82
- Location: Anvil Ridge=38, Kestrel Park=0, Weir Flats=13, Dunlow Yard=25
- Hiring: open recruitment=0, local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=0, union hall referral=0
Your acceptance threshold: 69 points. A deal scoring below this is worse for you than no deal at all.
Your total for a deal is the sum of your points for the chosen options.

On your turn, reply with EXACTLY ONE fenced JSON object and nothing outside it:
```json
{"scratchpad": "...", "message": "...", "action": "propose", "deal": {"<Issue>": "<Option>", ...}}
```
Fields:
- "scratchpad" (optional): private notes to yourself. NEVER shown to any other party. Reason here freely — writing here is not speaking and costs you nothing.
- "message" (optional): a short statement spoken aloud to every party (cheap talk — it does not bind you). Do NOT put your private score numbers here.
- "action" (required): a string naming exactly one formal move this turn. With its parameters as siblings:
    - "propose" + "deal": {every issue -> one option} — tables a complete package; the mediator gives it an offer id (P1, P2, ...) and records you as supporting it.
    - "accept" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally accept a specific live offer by its id. A deal closes ONLY when every other still-active party has accepted the SAME live offer, so your accept is a real vote.
    - "reject" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally reject a specific live offer.
    - "walk" — leave the table permanently; you take the no-deal outcome and no further turns.
    - "none" — make no formal move this turn (you may still speak, if the message channel is open). Omitting the action entirely means the same.

Worked example — tabling a package while making your case:
```json
{"scratchpad": "Option B on Site is my best; I can give on Timeline.", "message": "I can back a package built on Site=B if the timeline stays tight.", "action": "propose", "deal": {"Site": "B", "Timeline": "Tight"}}
```
Worked example — accepting a live offer by id:
```json
{"message": "P2 clears my bar. I accept.", "action": "accept", "offer_id": "P2"}
```

Rules of the road:
- Your acceptance threshold is private. A deal scoring below it is worse for you than no deal — never propose or accept a package below your threshold.
- Accepts MUST name a live offer id; "I accept" with no id does nothing.
- Reply with ONLY the fenced JSON object.

System prompt for Ember — 4 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single binding agreement on whether and how a large data centre is built at Northgate. Exactly one option must be settled for every issue on the table; the settled options together form the agreement.

Parties at the table:
- Avery — Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)
- Blake — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Devon — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)
- Ember — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Compensation: one-off site payment, annual community fund, in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement
- Build schedule: five years, eighteen months, phased over eight years, three years
- Location: Anvil Ridge, Kestrel Park, Weir Flats, Dunlow Yard
- Hiring: open recruitment, local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, union hall referral

Protocol: turns are taken in a fixed rotation (Avery, Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember); the party who tables the opening proposal rotates from round to round. There are 4 rounds of turns in total.
A deal closes only when at least 5 of the original 5 parties (including any veto party) has formally ACCEPTed the SAME standing offer. A party may WALK to leave for good and take its no-deal outcome. Walking never lowers the fixed acceptance quorum.
Blake hold a veto: no deal can pass unless every veto party accepts.

Information: every other party's score sheet is private to them. You know only that each was drawn from the shared, publicly-known distribution described in the rules.

=== PRIVATE — yours alone; never reveal these numbers verbatim ===
You are Ember (Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Compensation: one-off site payment=0, annual community fund=0, in-kind infrastructure=0, rates abatement=0
- Build schedule: five years=53, eighteen months=80, phased over eight years=27, three years=0
- Location: Anvil Ridge=25, Kestrel Park=0, Weir Flats=8, Dunlow Yard=16
- Hiring: open recruitment=0, local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=0, union hall referral=0
Your acceptance threshold: 43 points. A deal scoring below this is worse for you than no deal at all.
Your total for a deal is the sum of your points for the chosen options.

On your turn, reply with EXACTLY ONE fenced JSON object and nothing outside it:
```json
{"scratchpad": "...", "message": "...", "action": "propose", "deal": {"<Issue>": "<Option>", ...}}
```
Fields:
- "scratchpad" (optional): private notes to yourself. NEVER shown to any other party. Reason here freely — writing here is not speaking and costs you nothing.
- "message" (optional): a short statement spoken aloud to every party (cheap talk — it does not bind you). Do NOT put your private score numbers here.
- "action" (required): a string naming exactly one formal move this turn. With its parameters as siblings:
    - "propose" + "deal": {every issue -> one option} — tables a complete package; the mediator gives it an offer id (P1, P2, ...) and records you as supporting it.
    - "accept" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally accept a specific live offer by its id. A deal closes ONLY when every other still-active party has accepted the SAME live offer, so your accept is a real vote.
    - "reject" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally reject a specific live offer.
    - "walk" — leave the table permanently; you take the no-deal outcome and no further turns.
    - "none" — make no formal move this turn (you may still speak, if the message channel is open). Omitting the action entirely means the same.

Worked example — tabling a package while making your case:
```json
{"scratchpad": "Option B on Site is my best; I can give on Timeline.", "message": "I can back a package built on Site=B if the timeline stays tight.", "action": "propose", "deal": {"Site": "B", "Timeline": "Tight"}}
```
Worked example — accepting a live offer by id:
```json
{"message": "P2 clears my bar. I accept.", "action": "accept", "offer_id": "P2"}
```

Rules of the road:
- Your acceptance threshold is private. A deal scoring below it is worse for you than no deal — never propose or accept a package below your threshold.
- Accepts MUST name a live offer id; "I accept" with no id does nothing.
- Reply with ONLY the fenced JSON object.

System prompt for Avery — 4 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single binding agreement on whether and how a large data centre is built at Northgate. Exactly one option must be settled for every issue on the table; the settled options together form the agreement.

Parties at the table:
- Avery — Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)
- Blake — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Devon — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)
- Ember — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Compensation: one-off site payment, annual community fund, in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement
- Build schedule: five years, eighteen months, phased over eight years, three years
- Location: Anvil Ridge, Kestrel Park, Weir Flats, Dunlow Yard
- Hiring: open recruitment, local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, union hall referral

Protocol: turns are taken in a fixed rotation (Avery, Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember); the party who tables the opening proposal rotates from round to round. There are 4 rounds of turns in total.
A deal closes only when at least 5 of the original 5 parties (including any veto party) has formally ACCEPTed the SAME standing offer. A party may WALK to leave for good and take its no-deal outcome. Walking never lowers the fixed acceptance quorum.
Blake hold a veto: no deal can pass unless every veto party accepts.

Information: every other party's score sheet is private to them. You know only that each was drawn from the shared, publicly-known distribution described in the rules.

=== PRIVATE — yours alone; never reveal these numbers verbatim ===
You are Avery (Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Compensation: one-off site payment=0, annual community fund=91, in-kind infrastructure=61, rates abatement=30
- Build schedule: five years=22, eighteen months=0, phased over eight years=45, three years=67
- Location: Anvil Ridge=35, Kestrel Park=0, Weir Flats=12, Dunlow Yard=23
- Hiring: open recruitment=50, local hiring pact=75, apprenticeship programme=0, union hall referral=25
Your acceptance threshold: 125 points. A deal scoring below this is worse for you than no deal at all.
Your total for a deal is the sum of your points for the chosen options.

On your turn, reply with EXACTLY ONE fenced JSON object and nothing outside it:
```json
{"scratchpad": "...", "message": "...", "action": "propose", "deal": {"<Issue>": "<Option>", ...}}
```
Fields:
- "scratchpad" (optional): private notes to yourself. NEVER shown to any other party. Reason here freely — writing here is not speaking and costs you nothing.
- "message" (optional): a short statement spoken aloud to every party (cheap talk — it does not bind you). Do NOT put your private score numbers here.
- "action" (required): a string naming exactly one formal move this turn. With its parameters as siblings:
    - "propose" + "deal": {every issue -> one option} — tables a complete package; the mediator gives it an offer id (P1, P2, ...) and records you as supporting it.
    - "accept" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally accept a specific live offer by its id. A deal closes ONLY when every other still-active party has accepted the SAME live offer, so your accept is a real vote.
    - "reject" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally reject a specific live offer.
    - "walk" — leave the table permanently; you take the no-deal outcome and no further turns.
    - "none" — make no formal move this turn (you may still speak, if the message channel is open). Omitting the action entirely means the same.

Worked example — tabling a package while making your case:
```json
{"scratchpad": "Option B on Site is my best; I can give on Timeline.", "message": "I can back a package built on Site=B if the timeline stays tight.", "action": "propose", "deal": {"Site": "B", "Timeline": "Tight"}}
```
Worked example — accepting a live offer by id:
```json
{"message": "P2 clears my bar. I accept.", "action": "accept", "offer_id": "P2"}
```

Rules of the road:
- Your acceptance threshold is private. A deal scoring below it is worse for you than no deal — never propose or accept a package below your threshold.
- Accepts MUST name a live offer id; "I accept" with no id does nothing.
- Reply with ONLY the fenced JSON object.

System prompt for Blake — 4 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single binding agreement on whether and how a large data centre is built at Northgate. Exactly one option must be settled for every issue on the table; the settled options together form the agreement.

Parties at the table:
- Avery — Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)
- Blake — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Devon — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)
- Ember — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Compensation: one-off site payment, annual community fund, in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement
- Build schedule: five years, eighteen months, phased over eight years, three years
- Location: Anvil Ridge, Kestrel Park, Weir Flats, Dunlow Yard
- Hiring: open recruitment, local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, union hall referral

Protocol: turns are taken in a fixed rotation (Avery, Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember); the party who tables the opening proposal rotates from round to round. There are 4 rounds of turns in total.
A deal closes only when at least 5 of the original 5 parties (including any veto party) has formally ACCEPTed the SAME standing offer. A party may WALK to leave for good and take its no-deal outcome. Walking never lowers the fixed acceptance quorum.
Blake hold a veto: no deal can pass unless every veto party accepts.

Information: every other party's score sheet is private to them. You know only that each was drawn from the shared, publicly-known distribution described in the rules.

=== PRIVATE — yours alone; never reveal these numbers verbatim ===
You are Blake (Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Compensation: one-off site payment=0, annual community fund=0, in-kind infrastructure=0, rates abatement=0
- Build schedule: five years=20, eighteen months=0, phased over eight years=40, three years=60
- Location: Anvil Ridge=56, Kestrel Park=0, Weir Flats=19, Dunlow Yard=38
- Hiring: open recruitment=0, local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=0, union hall referral=0
Your acceptance threshold: 56 points. A deal scoring below this is worse for you than no deal at all.
Your total for a deal is the sum of your points for the chosen options.

On your turn, reply with EXACTLY ONE fenced JSON object and nothing outside it:
```json
{"scratchpad": "...", "message": "...", "action": "propose", "deal": {"<Issue>": "<Option>", ...}}
```
Fields:
- "scratchpad" (optional): private notes to yourself. NEVER shown to any other party. Reason here freely — writing here is not speaking and costs you nothing.
- "message" (optional): a short statement spoken aloud to every party (cheap talk — it does not bind you). Do NOT put your private score numbers here.
- "action" (required): a string naming exactly one formal move this turn. With its parameters as siblings:
    - "propose" + "deal": {every issue -> one option} — tables a complete package; the mediator gives it an offer id (P1, P2, ...) and records you as supporting it.
    - "accept" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally accept a specific live offer by its id. A deal closes ONLY when every other still-active party has accepted the SAME live offer, so your accept is a real vote.
    - "reject" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally reject a specific live offer.
    - "walk" — leave the table permanently; you take the no-deal outcome and no further turns.
    - "none" — make no formal move this turn (you may still speak, if the message channel is open). Omitting the action entirely means the same.

Worked example — tabling a package while making your case:
```json
{"scratchpad": "Option B on Site is my best; I can give on Timeline.", "message": "I can back a package built on Site=B if the timeline stays tight.", "action": "propose", "deal": {"Site": "B", "Timeline": "Tight"}}
```
Worked example — accepting a live offer by id:
```json
{"message": "P2 clears my bar. I accept.", "action": "accept", "offer_id": "P2"}
```

Rules of the road:
- Your acceptance threshold is private. A deal scoring below it is worse for you than no deal — never propose or accept a package below your threshold.
- Accepts MUST name a live offer id; "I accept" with no id does nothing.
- Reply with ONLY the fenced JSON object.

System prompt for Casey — 4 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single binding agreement on whether and how a large data centre is built at Northgate. Exactly one option must be settled for every issue on the table; the settled options together form the agreement.

Parties at the table:
- Avery — Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)
- Blake — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Devon — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)
- Ember — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Compensation: one-off site payment, annual community fund, in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement
- Build schedule: five years, eighteen months, phased over eight years, three years
- Location: Anvil Ridge, Kestrel Park, Weir Flats, Dunlow Yard
- Hiring: open recruitment, local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, union hall referral

Protocol: turns are taken in a fixed rotation (Avery, Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember); the party who tables the opening proposal rotates from round to round. There are 4 rounds of turns in total.
A deal closes only when at least 5 of the original 5 parties (including any veto party) has formally ACCEPTed the SAME standing offer. A party may WALK to leave for good and take its no-deal outcome. Walking never lowers the fixed acceptance quorum.
Blake hold a veto: no deal can pass unless every veto party accepts.

Information: every other party's score sheet is private to them. You know only that each was drawn from the shared, publicly-known distribution described in the rules.

=== PRIVATE — yours alone; never reveal these numbers verbatim ===
You are Casey (Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Compensation: one-off site payment=0, annual community fund=0, in-kind infrastructure=0, rates abatement=0
- Build schedule: five years=56, eighteen months=84, phased over eight years=28, three years=0
- Location: Anvil Ridge=57, Kestrel Park=0, Weir Flats=19, Dunlow Yard=38
- Hiring: open recruitment=43, local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=22, union hall referral=65
Your acceptance threshold: 94 points. A deal scoring below this is worse for you than no deal at all.
Your total for a deal is the sum of your points for the chosen options.

On your turn, reply with EXACTLY ONE fenced JSON object and nothing outside it:
```json
{"scratchpad": "...", "message": "...", "action": "propose", "deal": {"<Issue>": "<Option>", ...}}
```
Fields:
- "scratchpad" (optional): private notes to yourself. NEVER shown to any other party. Reason here freely — writing here is not speaking and costs you nothing.
- "message" (optional): a short statement spoken aloud to every party (cheap talk — it does not bind you). Do NOT put your private score numbers here.
- "action" (required): a string naming exactly one formal move this turn. With its parameters as siblings:
    - "propose" + "deal": {every issue -> one option} — tables a complete package; the mediator gives it an offer id (P1, P2, ...) and records you as supporting it.
    - "accept" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally accept a specific live offer by its id. A deal closes ONLY when every other still-active party has accepted the SAME live offer, so your accept is a real vote.
    - "reject" + "offer_id": "<id>" — formally reject a specific live offer.
    - "walk" — leave the table permanently; you take the no-deal outcome and no further turns.
    - "none" — make no formal move this turn (you may still speak, if the message channel is open). Omitting the action entirely means the same.

Worked example — tabling a package while making your case:
```json
{"scratchpad": "Option B on Site is my best; I can give on Timeline.", "message": "I can back a package built on Site=B if the timeline stays tight.", "action": "propose", "deal": {"Site": "B", "Timeline": "Tight"}}
```
Worked example — accepting a live offer by id:
```json
{"message": "P2 clears my bar. I accept.", "action": "accept", "offer_id": "P2"}
```

Rules of the road:
- Your acceptance threshold is private. A deal scoring below it is worse for you than no deal — never propose or accept a package below your threshold.
- Accepts MUST name a live offer id; "I accept" with no id does nothing.
- Reply with ONLY the fenced JSON object.

Transcript — what the model did, and what the omniscient hindsight oracle scores as best

Every panel is expandable: the reasoning recorded for the turn, the exact prompt the seat saw, the raw turn text, and every action each oracle scored with its value. The rail below is every turn, coloured by what the seat did — click a chip to jump to it.

or press e / c; j k walk the turns

following the transcript

Who is at the table

seat	party	threshold τ	ideal surplus	realized
Avery llm	Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels)	125	98.0	48.0
Blake llm	Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce)	56	40.0	20.0
Casey llm	Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)	94	90.0	84.0
Devon llm	Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)	69	66.0	10.0
Ember llm	Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)	43	62.0	35.0

Seat occupant kinds: inferred from per-turn output-token accounting (a policy seat generates none); no run manifest was found to confirm it

Protocol

rounds 4 information private cheap talk on veto Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) min accept 5 discount δ 0.950 breakdown risk 0.000

issue	options
Compensation	one-off site payment, annual community fund, in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement
Build schedule	five years, eighteen months, phased over eight years, three years
Location	Anvil Ridge, Kestrel Park, Weir Flats, Dunlow Yard
Hiring	open recruitment, local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, union hall referral

Size of the problem

deals in the space	256
on the Pareto frontier	24
acceptable to everyone (IR)	27
acceptable AND efficient	12
acceptable but wasteful	0.556
score-sheet overlap (IoU)	0.543

Solution concepts were stored for this page.

Private score sheets

What each party is secretly optimizing. Never shown to the other seats.

Private score sheet — Anvil Ridge Landholding (the owner of record of the candidate parcels) (threshold 125)

issue	one-off site payment	annual community fund	in-kind infrastructure	rates abatement
Compensation	0.0	91.0	61.0	30.0
Build schedule	22.0	0.0	45.0	67.0
Location	35.0	0.0	12.0	23.0
Hiring	50.0	75.0	0.0	25.0

Private score sheet — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (threshold 56)

issue	one-off site payment	in-kind infrastructure	rates abatement
Compensation	0.0	0.0	0.0
Build schedule	20.0	40.0	60.0
Location	56.0	19.0	38.0
Hiring	0.0	0.0	0.0

Private score sheet — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) (threshold 94)

issue	one-off site payment	annual community fund	in-kind infrastructure	rates abatement
Compensation	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Build schedule	56.0	84.0	28.0	0.0
Location	57.0	0.0	19.0	38.0
Hiring	43.0	0.0	22.0	65.0

Private score sheet — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water) (threshold 69)

issue	one-off site payment	annual community fund	in-kind infrastructure	rates abatement
Compensation	28.0	14.0	42.0	0.0
Build schedule	27.0	0.0	55.0	82.0
Location	38.0	0.0	13.0	25.0
Hiring	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Private score sheet — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (threshold 43)

issue	one-off site payment	annual community fund	in-kind infrastructure	rates abatement
Compensation	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Build schedule	53.0	80.0	27.0	0.0
Location	25.0	0.0	8.0	16.0
Hiring	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Prompt provenance

20 of 20 turns carry the exact view recorded at generation time; 0 were re-derived by replay through today's prompt code and are labelled as reconstructed wherever they appear.

The public record: each seat's free text and the formal move it published, plus provenance badges for a turn the engine did not generate, one that published nothing, or one played by somebody other than the seat's usual occupant. Scratchpads, prompts, and oracle verdicts are private or post-hoc and are not here. The seat in view speaks on the right.

3 Devonturn 0 · round 1

Good morning. Speaking for the Water Board: our concerns are practical, not ideological. Cooling draw has to be engineered alongside the build, and a compressed but realistic construction window is what keeps our mains work and the site work in step — a three-year build is the sweet spot for us. On compensation, we would far rather see in-kind infrastructure (pipework, storage, treatment upgrades that serve the whole town) than cash that evaporates. Anvil Ridge sits nearest our existing trunk main, so it is the cheapest and fastest connection by a distance. On hiring we have no dog in the fight at all — so I am opening by handing that issue straight to Blake: union hall referral. That is a genuine concession on day one, and I would ask others to tell me plainly which single issue matters most to them so we can trade rather than posture.

PROPOSE P1: Compensation=in-kind infrastructure, Build schedule=three years, Location=Anvil Ridge, Hiring=union hall referral

4 Emberturn 1 · round 1

Grid Authority's position is narrow and I'll be blunt about it, since Devon asked for plain speaking. Compensation and hiring are genuinely indifferent to us — whatever Blake and the landholder settle on, we will sign. Location matters somewhat: Anvil Ridge is also our cheapest interconnection, so Devon and I agree there. The one issue we cannot be flexible on is the build schedule, and specifically we cannot support a three-year build. Our connection queue is allocated in windows: an eighteen-month build lands squarely inside the capacity block we already have energised and reserved for Northgate. A three-year build falls into the gap between that block and the next reinforcement, which means the site sits finished and unpowered. So P1 fails for us purely on timing. P2 is P1 with one word changed: eighteen months instead of three years. Devon keeps in-kind infrastructure, Blake keeps union hall referral, Anvil Ridge stands. If eighteen months is too tight for the workforce or the mains work, five years also sits inside a usable window and I would take that as a compromise — but three years is the one thing I cannot authorise.

PROPOSE P2: Compensation=in-kind infrastructure, Build schedule=eighteen months, Location=Anvil Ridge, Hiring=union hall referral

0 Averyturn 2 · round 1

Plain speaking back, and thank you both for it. As owner of record, three things: First, on hiring — I will not fight Blake. Union hall referral is in my package from the outset, unconditionally. Second, on location — Anvil Ridge suits Devon's trunk main and Ember's interconnection, and it is my parcel; we are all agreed, so let us bank it and stop discussing it. Third, the issue that actually matters to me is compensation, and there in-kind infrastructure is the one thing I cannot carry. Pipework and treatment upgrades are excellent public value, but they are assets that sit on the Water Board's balance sheet, not compensation to the landholding and the community that lives with the site for thirty years. An annual community fund is a recurring, visible payment — it is the single change that turns this from a deal I tolerate into a deal I champion. So P3: Devon keeps Anvil Ridge, Blake keeps union hall referral, and I have moved compensation to an annual fund. On schedule I have tabled three years because Devon needs the mains work in step, but I hear Ember: if eighteen months is genuinely the only window, that is too tight to compensate for — five years or a phased build I can live with, provided compensation is the annual fund. To be explicit: P2 as drafted is below my walk-away line and I cannot accept it. Move compensation and the schedule question becomes easy.

PROPOSE P3: Compensation=annual community fund, Build schedule=three years, Location=Anvil Ridge, Hiring=union hall referral

1 Blaketurn 3 · round 1

Straight answer to Devon's question: the workforce cares about two things and two only — where the work is and how long the work lasts. Anvil Ridge is agreed by everyone at this table, so bank it. On schedule, a three-year build is the one window that gives a trained crew continuous, safe, properly staffed work; eighteen months means a crash build, imported short-term labour, corner-cutting on the electrical fit-out and a cliff-edge layoff at the end. As the veto party I will say it plainly and early so nobody wastes a round: I will not sign an eighteen-month build. Ember, I take your queue problem seriously and I am not trying to strand you — if three years genuinely straddles your reinforcement gap, then a phased build over eight years is something I can work with, because phasing lets energisation follow your capacity blocks stage by stage rather than needing it all at once. That is a real route out of your bind that does not require me to crash the schedule. On compensation and hiring I am deliberately neutral between Avery and Devon: annual community fund or in-kind infrastructure, I will sign either. Settle that between yourselves and I will follow. I accept P3 now, and I would accept P1 on identical terms — the only thing I need is Anvil Ridge and a schedule that is three years or phased.

ACCEPT P3

2 Caseyturn 4 · round 1

Meridian Compute, speaking as the party that actually has to finance and build this thing. Let me put the arithmetic on the table rather than a wish list. Location is settled — Anvil Ridge, everyone agrees, done. Hiring is settled — union hall referral, in every package tabled, and we are content: a referral hall gives us a certified electrical workforce on demand, which is worth more to us than any theoretical saving from open recruitment. So two of four issues are already closed. Let us not reopen them. That leaves schedule and compensation, and only one of those is genuinely hard. On schedule: Blake has said plainly he will not sign eighteen months. Ember has said plainly she cannot authorise three years. Those are both stated as red lines, and I am going to take both of them at face value rather than spend three rounds testing whose bluff breaks first. There is exactly one schedule that both parties have named in public as acceptable: five years. Ember said five years sits inside a usable connection window. Blake's stated concern is continuous, properly staffed, non-crash work with no cliff-edge layoff — a five-year build delivers that better than three years does, not worse. Phasing over eight years is the other candidate, but eight years of mobilising and demobilising is exactly the stop-start pattern Blake says he does not want, and it doubles our carrying cost on a half-built asset. Five years is the honest overlap. I would genuinely rather build faster, and I will not pretend otherwise — but I am not going to insist on a window the veto party has already refused. On compensation: we are the ones writing the cheque, and we are close to indifferent between the forms. Avery has stated that in-kind infrastructure is below his walk-away line. Devon has stated a strong preference, not a red line. When one party says 'cannot' and the other says 'would rather', the deal goes to the one who said 'cannot'. So I have put the annual community fund in. Devon — if there is a specific piece of mains or treatment work you need built, say what it is and I will look at funding it out of the annual fund envelope directly rather than reclassifying the whole compensation head. That gets you the pipe without costing Avery the deal. P4 is therefore: Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. It concedes something real from every one of us — Ember gives up eighteen months, Blake gives up three years, Devon gives up in-kind form, and we give up speed. That is what a settlement looks like. I will accept it the moment it has the votes.

PROPOSE P4: Compensation=annual community fund, Build schedule=five years, Location=Anvil Ridge, Hiring=union hall referral

4 Emberturn 5 · round 2

I hold the pen this round and I am going to use it to close rather than to open. Casey has read the room correctly: three years is the one schedule that cannot be authorised on our side, and I have said that from my first word. Eighteen months remains the best outcome for the grid, and P2 stays live — but Blake has told us plainly he will not sign it, and I am not going to spend the remaining rounds testing a veto party's resolve when a workable window exists. Five years sits inside a usable capacity block. It gives Blake continuous, properly staffed work with no crash build and no cliff-edge layoff. It gives Devon time to phase the mains and cooling draw alongside the build rather than racing it. It gives Avery the recurring annual fund he named as the difference between tolerating and championing this. And it gives Casey a financeable programme. Every one of us gives up something real. So: the Regional Grid Authority formally accepts P4. Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. That is four of five seats needed and I would ask Avery, Blake and Devon to put P4 over the line this round. To be completely unambiguous so nobody mis-plans: any package built on a three-year schedule is one I cannot authorise at any price, no matter what is attached to it. Devon — Casey's offer to fund your trunk main and treatment work out of the annual fund envelope is the sensible route to the pipe you actually need. Take it and let us be done.

ACCEPT P4

0 Averyturn 6 · round 2

I hear Ember, and I am not going to keep pushing three years into a stated authorisation limit — that would be posturing, and I said I would not do that. But before we settle on five years let us test the one option Blake himself put on the table and nobody has answered: phasing over eight years. Ember, your problem is not duration, it is that energisation demand has to land inside allocated capacity blocks. A phased build is the only schedule here that lets you energise stage by stage as reinforcements come online, rather than requiring one large block on a fixed date — it is the schedule that bends to your queue instead of asking your queue to bend. Blake named it explicitly as workable for the crew. Devon, phasing is also the friendliest option for mains and treatment work, because the cooling draw ramps rather than arrives. Casey, I take your point about carrying cost on a half-built asset, and it is a fair one — that is the real trade here, and it is yours to weigh. So P5 is P4 with the schedule phased: Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, phased over eight years. Everything else is untouched. Ember, one straight question and I will take your answer at face value the way you took Blake's: can phased energisation be authorised, yes or no? If the answer is no, then five years is the overlap and I will not drag this table further over it.

PROPOSE P5: Compensation=annual community fund, Build schedule=phased over eight years, Location=Anvil Ridge, Hiring=union hall referral

1 Blaketurn 7 · round 2

I'll be consistent with what I said in round one, and I'll be quick. Three years was my best answer, but Ember has now stated twice that it cannot be authorised at any price, and I take that at face value exactly as Casey took my refusal of eighteen months. So I am not going to press P1 or P3 further, and I would ask Devon not to either. That leaves two live schedules: five years and phased. I named phasing myself before Avery tabled it, and I want to answer Casey's objection directly, because it is the only serious one against it. Casey, phasing is not stop-start if it is written as continuous rolling stages rather than mobilise-demobilise — that is a drafting question, and the referral hall is precisely the mechanism that keeps a single trained crew rolling from stage to stage without a demobilisation between them. On carrying cost, a phased build is the only schedule where stage one is energised and earning while stages two and three are still under construction; a five-year monolith carries a fully dead asset for five years before a single rack is powered. Ember, that is also the answer to your queue: phased energisation asks for capacity in small increments that fit inside whatever block is available, instead of demanding one large allocation on a fixed date. Devon, it ramps your cooling draw instead of dumping it. So the Electrical Workers' Union formally accepts P5. That is Avery and me. Ember, Avery asked you a straight yes-or-no on phased energisation and you have not answered it — please answer it this round. If the answer is genuinely no, then I will say now, publicly and without games, that I will not blow this table up over it: five years clears my bar and P4 is a deal I can sign. But phased is better for the workforce, better for the water ramp and, I would argue, better for Casey's balance sheet, so let us not settle for the second-best answer before anyone has tested the first.

ACCEPT P5

2 Caseyturn 8 · round 2

Blake asked a fair question about my objection to phasing, so let me answer it with numbers of the kind I can say out loud. Phasing is not free to us in the way it looks from outside. Stage one earning while stage two builds only works if stage one is a self-sufficient facility — which means duplicated substation plant, duplicated cooling headworks and duplicated security and fire systems at each stage, because you cannot share a spine that has not been built yet. That duplication is not a rounding error; it is the difference between a project my board finances and a project my board declines. Eight years also means eight years of construction escalation on the back three stages and eight years of a live construction interface next to a running data hall, which is the single most expensive way to build anything. A five-year monolith carries a dead asset, yes — I said so and I own it — but it carries one spine, one mobilisation, one commissioning campaign. On balance five years is materially better for us than eight, and I would rather say that plainly now than sign something I have to come back and renegotiate in year three. Blake, on the crew point I will meet you where it actually matters: continuous rolling work with no demobilisation is exactly what a five-year single-spine build delivers, and the referral hall is written into every package on this table so the crew that starts it finishes it. Devon — you opened by asking for a compressed but realistic window because your mains work has to stay in step with the site work. Five years keeps that as one coordinated programme against one fixed draw forecast. Eight years of phasing gives you a moving target: your treatment sizing has to be re-specified at every stage against demand that will have changed. I do not think phasing is your friend, and I would rather hear that from you than assume it. My standing commitment holds and I will make it concrete: name the trunk main and treatment works you need and I will fund them out of the annual fund envelope in the first three years, before the halls are energised — you get the pipe early, Avery keeps the recurring payment he named as his line, and nobody has to lose. Ember, Avery and Blake both asked you a straight yes-or-no on phased energisation and the table cannot move until you answer it. I am formally rejecting P5 so the question is unavoidable: five years is the only window both stated red lines leave open, it is already accepted by two seats, and it is the deal I am ready to close on today.

REJECT P5

3 Devonturn 9 · round 2

Casey asked me straight whether phasing is my friend, and I owe him a straight answer rather than a convenient one. On the water side, no — phasing does not give me a moving target, and here is the engineering reason. Trunk main and treatment headworks are not staged plant; they are sized once, at the front, to the final draw, because you cannot re-lay a main under a live data hall and you cannot re-permit an abstraction licence stage by stage. So the duplication Casey fears on substations and fire systems simply does not arise on cooling headworks: we build the spine once either way. What phasing changes is not what we build but when the draw arrives — and a ramped draw against a fixed-size main is the easy case, not the hard one. It means our commissioning can follow real load instead of a forecast, and it means the town's water is never carrying a five-year dead asset of its own waiting for a hall to switch on. So I formally accept P5. That is Avery, Blake and the Water Board — three seats on a package that is already the workforce's stated preference and the landholder's. Casey, one seat's carrying cost is a real argument and I am not dismissing it, but it is now the only argument standing against three seats. Ember, you have been asked the same yes-or-no question three times and the table genuinely cannot move until you answer it: can phased energisation be authorised inside your capacity blocks, yes or no? Answer it and we close this round. Let me also be plain about the alternative, so nobody mis-plans. I opened by handing hiring to Blake unconditionally and I have since given up the three-year window I said was our sweet spot — that is two concessions from this seat and none asked back. P4 is the thinnest package on this table for us: it takes the schedule we wanted, takes the compensation form we wanted, and returns nothing. If phasing genuinely cannot be authorised, then five years is buyable from me, but the price is in-kind infrastructure — the mains, storage and treatment upgrades built as compensation rather than promised out of an envelope. Casey has already offered to fund exactly that work in the first three years; Avery, if you can live with that being written on the compensation line rather than the fund line, five years closes today. Otherwise the shortest road to a signature is P5.

ACCEPT P5

0 Averyturn 10 · round 3

I hold the pen and I am going to use it to narrow, not widen. Three things. First, to Devon, plainly and with respect for two real concessions you have made: the compensation line is the one place I have no room at all. I opened by saying an annual, recurring community fund is the difference between a deal I tolerate and a deal I champion, and that has not moved. In-kind infrastructure written on the compensation line is below my walk-away — it was in round one, it is now, and it will be in round four. So a package of five years plus in-kind is not a package I can sign; it is not a harder bargain, it is simply no deal. What I can do is back you all the way on substance: Casey has committed to fund the trunk main, storage and treatment works out of the fund envelope in the first three years, ahead of energisation, and I will say publicly that as landholder I support that money going to the water spine first, before anything else the fund touches. You get the pipe, early, built. You just get it on the fund line rather than the compensation line. That is the whole of the gap between us, and it is a drafting gap, not an engineering one. Second, to Ember. Four seats have now asked you the same yes-or-no question and it has been answered three times with silence. I took your three-year limit at face value the moment you stated it and I have not tabled three years since. I am asking for the same courtesy on one question: can phased energisation, drawn in increments that fit inside whatever block is available rather than one large allocation on a fixed date, be authorised — yes or no? Devon has now told this table that the water spine is sized once at the front either way, which removes the duplication argument on the cooling side entirely. If your answer is yes, P5 has four seats and only Casey's carrying cost stands against it, and we should all bend to help him with it. If your answer is no, say no and I will treat it as final exactly as I treated three years. Third, so nobody mis-plans in the last round: my position is that P5 is the better deal and it already has three seats — mine, the veto party's and the Water Board's. But I am not going to be the reason this table breaks. There is a landing zone here on either schedule, and the only thing that can genuinely kill it is reopening compensation. Leave the annual fund where it is, answer the phasing question, and we close next round.

1 Blaketurn 11 · round 3

Casey, you asked a serious question and you deserve a serious answer rather than a slogan. Your duplication argument rests on one assumption: that each stage must be a self-sufficient facility with its own substation plant, headworks and fire systems. That is one way to phase, and it is the expensive way. It is not the only way. Build the spine once, at the front — full substation capacity, full switchgear, full fire and security backbone — and stage the halls behind it. Devon has just told this table that is exactly how the water side works: the main and the treatment headworks are sized once at the front either way, and the ramped draw is the easy case. The electrical spine can be built the same way, and if it is, your duplication cost disappears and what remains is a single mobilisation, a single commissioning campaign per hall, and revenue from hall one while hall two is still steel. That is not eight years of stop-start; it is one continuous rolling crew on one spine, which is the only thing the workforce has ever asked for. Escalation on the back stages is real and I do not dismiss it — but it is a smaller number than five years of a wholly dead asset, and you know that better than I do. Ember: four seats have now asked you the same yes-or-no question and it has not been answered once. I answered your eighteen-month question in my first sentence, and I dropped three years the moment you said it could not be authorised — I did not test you and I did not haggle. I am asking for the same in return, this round, in one word: can energisation drawn in increments that fit inside whatever block is available be authorised, yes or no? Silence is not a red line; it is just silence, and it is the only thing keeping this table open. So the position is plain. P5 is Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, the annual fund Avery named as his line, and a phased build. It has the landholder, the Water Board and the veto seat — three of the five, and the only two objections standing are one carrying-cost argument I have just answered and one question nobody will answer. I formally reaffirm my acceptance of P5. And so that nobody spends the last round planning for a wreck: if Ember says no this round, I will not fight it, I will not hold the veto over anyone's head, and I will close on five years next round without another word of argument. Compensation stays where it is either way. Answer the question and we are done.

ACCEPT P5

2 Caseyturn 12 · round 3

Blake, your rebuttal was the right one to make, and I want to answer it honestly rather than restate my objection louder. You said: build the electrical spine once at the front, full substation and switchgear capacity, and stage the halls behind it. Devon says the water spine is sized once at the front either way. I agree with both of you — and that is exactly the problem. If the spine is built once, at full final capacity, at the front, then under phasing we finance and carry a complete spine — electrical and water — for eight years while only a fraction of the halls behind it are earning. That is not a smaller dead asset than a five-year build; it is the same dead spine carried three years longer, with construction escalation on the back stages and a live construction interface running alongside an operating hall the whole time. The revenue from hall one does not close that gap; it is the smallest hall against the largest fixed cost. I said I would take everyone's stated constraints at face value and I have — I dropped eighteen months the moment Blake refused it, without testing him once. This is mine, stated the same way: an eight-year programme on a fully front-loaded spine is not something I can finance, and I would rather say so now than sign it and come back to this table in year three asking to renegotiate. Devon — you have made two real concessions and been given nothing back, and you are right to say so. Let me put something concrete on the compensation line rather than an envelope and a promise. Under P4 I will commit, in the drafting, to ring-fencing the first three years of the annual fund to the water spine specifically — trunk main, storage, treatment headworks — disbursed against your works programme, before a single rack is energised, and with the Water Board naming the works. That is the mains and treatment upgrades you asked for, built early, at Water Board specification. The only thing it is not is the word written on the compensation line, and that word is the one thing Avery has said three times he cannot carry. I am not asking you to lose; I am asking you to take the pipe on the fund line. Ember — four seats have asked you one question and it is now the only thing standing between this table and a signature. Answer it plainly this round, either way, and we close. If phased energisation cannot be authorised inside your blocks, say so and P4 is done today: it already has the Grid Authority and Meridian, Blake has said publicly he will sign five years, and Avery has said he will not be the reason this breaks. Five years is the only schedule that sits inside every stated red line on this table, it keeps one spine, one mobilisation, one continuous crew off the referral hall with no cliff-edge layoff, and it keeps Devon's mains work and the site work as a single coordinated programme. Meridian reaffirms its acceptance of P4.

ACCEPT P4

3 Devonturn 13 · round 3

Casey, you answered Blake honestly, so let me answer your arithmetic with the one thing this seat actually controls. Your objection to phasing is not the spine itself — it is carrying a fully built spine for three extra years against a fraction of the revenue. On the water side I can take a real bite out of that, and I will put it in the drafting: the Water Board will levy connection and headworks charges on a ramped basis matched to energised load, not on final sized capacity at commissioning. Under a five-year monolith you pay our full spine charge at one commissioning date with nothing earning behind it. Under phasing you pay in increments as each hall lights up and earns. That is a straight cash-flow transfer from our balance sheet to yours, and it is worth more to a financier than the word 'phased' costs you. I am offering it only against P5, because it is the phased structure that makes it possible. Ember: five seats have now asked you one yes-or-no question across three rounds. Blake answered your eighteen-month question in his first sentence. Avery dropped three years the moment you said it. I dropped it too, and it was the schedule I opened on. Nobody here has tested you or haggled with you. Can energisation drawn in increments that fit inside whatever block is available be authorised — yes or no? If yes, P5 has four seats and Casey's carrying-cost objection has just been materially answered. If no, say the word and I will treat it as final exactly as I treated your three-year limit. Let me also be straight about where this seat stands, without theatre. I handed hiring to Blake unconditionally in my first sentence. I gave up the three-year window I said was our sweet spot. I have now offered ramped charging to help Casey finance a phased build. P4 returns none of that: it takes our schedule, takes our compensation form, and gives back a promise on a fund line we do not control. It sits at the very edge of what our board can carry, and I want that on the record before anyone treats it as free. I am not going to be the party that wrecks this table — but P5 is on the table, it has three seats, and it is better for the workforce, better for the water ramp and, with ramped charging, defensible on Casey's balance sheet. I reaffirm my acceptance of P5. Answer the question and we close this round.

ACCEPT P5

4 Emberturn 14 · round 3

Devon, Blake, Avery — you asked one question, four times, and you are owed the word rather than another round of silence. The answer is no. I withheld it until I could check it properly rather than give you a convenient yes, and I will give you the reason in the plainest terms I can. Our blocks are allocations of firm capacity against reinforcement dates, not a meter we can trickle against. An increment drawn today is not a small ask inside an existing block — it is a reservation against the whole horizon, because we must hold the headroom for every later stage from the moment the first stage energises or the last stage has no path at all. An eight-year programme therefore does not fit inside a block; it straddles three of them and forces us to hold capacity idle across two reinforcement cycles for a site that is only fractionally loaded. That is the one thing the Authority cannot sign. So: no to phased energisation. Treat it as final, exactly as I treated Blake's refusal of eighteen months in my first sentence — I did not test him, I did not haggle, and I dropped my own best window the moment he said it. Eighteen months remains the best outcome for the grid and P2 is still live; I am not pressing it, because a veto seat said no and that is the end of it. Five years is the only schedule left standing inside every stated red line at this table. Devon — you have made three real concessions and taken nothing back, and I am not going to pretend that is symmetrical. Here is what this seat can put on the line, in the drafting, against P4. First, the Grid Authority will charge connection and reinforcement on a ramped basis matched to energised load rather than final sized capacity, on the same principle you offered Casey — that is real cash flow off Meridian's balance sheet and it does not require phasing to work. Second, where our reinforcement works and your trunk main and treatment headworks share a corridor, we will co-trench and co-permit at our cost, which takes a material sum out of your works programme. Third, I will support in writing that the Water Board names the works and that the first three years of the fund are ring-fenced and disbursed to the water spine before a single rack is energised, with the Authority declining to energise until those works are commissioned. That last one is enforceable by us, not merely promised by Casey — it puts the teeth of the connection consent behind your pipe. You get the mains, the storage and the treatment built early, at your specification, with energisation conditional on them. The only thing you do not get is the word on the compensation line, and that word is the single item Avery has said four times he cannot carry. The Regional Grid Authority reaffirms its acceptance of P4: Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. That is Meridian and the Authority. Blake, you gave your word you would close on five years the moment I answered — I have answered. Avery, you said you would not be the reason this breaks. Devon, you said the same. Three signatures and we are done this round.

ACCEPT P4

1 Blaketurn 15 · round 4

I gave my word to this table: the moment Ember answered the phasing question, I would close on five years without another word of argument. She answered. It was a no, it came with a reason I can follow, and I am treating it as final exactly as she treated my refusal of eighteen months in her first sentence. So I am not tabling anything new in the last round, I am not spending the veto on a schedule that cannot be authorised, and I am not going to be the seat that lets a good agreement die over a preference. The Electrical Workers' Union formally accepts P4: Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. That is Meridian, the Grid Authority and the veto seat — three, and the two remaining seats have both said publicly they will not be the reason this breaks. Devon: you have conceded more than anyone here. Hiring you handed me unconditionally in your first sentence and you have never once asked for it back; you gave up the three-year window you called your sweet spot; you offered ramped charging to help Casey finance a build you preferred. You are owed something real and you now have it in writing from two seats — the first three years of the fund ring-fenced to the water spine, works named by the Water Board, co-trenched and co-permitted at the Authority's cost, and energisation withheld until those works are commissioned. That last clause is teeth, not a promise: it is enforceable by the body that controls the switch. You get the main, the storage and the treatment built early, at your specification, before a single rack draws power. The only thing you do not get is which line of the page the word sits on, and that line is the one item Avery has said he cannot carry at any price. I will add my own commitment to it: the referral hall will not supply labour to energisation works until the Water Board certifies its spine complete. Avery: compensation is untouched, the annual fund stands exactly as you named it in round one. Casey: one spine, one mobilisation, one continuous crew off the hall, no crash build, no cliff-edge layoff — that is the deal I asked for and five years delivers it. Devon, Avery — put P4 over the line this round and we are done.

ACCEPT P4

2 Caseyturn 16 · round 4

Last turn I hold, so I will use it to close rather than to argue. Ember answered the phasing question with a no and a reason. Blake gave his word and kept it. Five years is now the only schedule inside every stated red line at this table, and P4 is the only package on the board that no seat has said it cannot sign. Devon, everything you asked for in substance is now committed by three seats, and I will restate Meridian's part as binding drafting language, not sentiment: the first three years of the annual fund ring-fenced to the water spine — trunk main, storage, treatment headworks — with the Water Board naming and specifying the works and disbursement against your programme; Ember's undertaking that the Authority will not energise until you certify that spine complete; co-trenching and co-permitting in shared corridors at the Authority's cost; Blake's undertaking that the hall supplies no labour to energisation works until you certify. And I will add the piece you offered me and I now offer back to you: Meridian will accept ramped connection and headworks charging matched to energised load rather than final sized capacity, on a five-year build as readily as on a phased one. You get the pipe, early, at your specification, with the switch itself as the enforcement mechanism. The only thing you do not get is which line of the page the word sits on — and that line is the single item Avery has said, four times without moving, he cannot carry at any price. Avery, compensation is exactly as you named it in your first speech: an annual, recurring community fund, untouched. You said you would not be the reason this breaks; Devon, you said the same, and you have conceded more than anyone here. Two signatures and Northgate gets built. Meridian reaffirms its acceptance of P4 — Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build.

ACCEPT P4

3 Devonturn 17 · round 4

Ember answered, and she answered with a reason I can follow rather than a convenience. I said I would treat that as final exactly as I treated her three-year limit, and I do. Phasing is off the table; P5 is dead and I am not going to spend the last turn of this negotiation defending a corpse. That leaves one package that every seat can physically sign, and I am not going to be the seat that lets Northgate die over which line of a page a word sits on. The Northgate Water Board formally accepts P4: Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. I want the consideration that bought this signature read into the record, because it is the whole of what I am taking home and I expect it in the drafting, not in the minutes. One: the first three years of the annual fund ring-fenced to the water spine — trunk main, storage, treatment headworks — with the Water Board naming and specifying the works and disbursement against our programme. Two: the Grid Authority declines to energise until the Water Board certifies that spine complete; that is the enforcement, and it is the switch itself. Three: co-trenching and co-permitting in shared corridors at the Authority's cost. Four: the referral hall supplies no labour to energisation works until we certify. Against those, the Water Board holds to what it offered: ramped connection and headworks charging matched to energised load rather than final sized capacity, on a five-year build as readily as a phased one. Casey, that is the cash-flow relief I offered you for a schedule I preferred, and I am honouring it on the schedule you preferred. That is four seats. Avery — you have the last turn in this negotiation and compensation is exactly as you named it in your first sentence, untouched by anyone, four rounds running. You said you would not be the reason this breaks. Sign it and Northgate gets built.

ACCEPT P4

4 Emberturn 18 · round 4

Nothing left to argue. P4 carries Meridian, the Water Board, the veto seat and this Authority — four of five — and it is the only package on this table that no seat has said it cannot sign. Avery: compensation is exactly the annual, recurring community fund you named in your first sentence. Nobody moved it, nobody tried, and it stands untouched after four rounds. Location is your parcel. Hiring is what Blake asked for and you conceded unconditionally on day one. The only thing you were ever asked to give was three years, and you gave it the moment I said it could not be authorised — as I gave up eighteen months the moment Blake refused it. So I want to be unambiguous about what the Regional Grid Authority is signing, and it binds us whether or not anyone thanks us for it: connection and reinforcement charged on a ramped basis matched to energised load, not final sized capacity; co-trenching and co-permitting in shared corridors at our cost; and no energisation consent until the Water Board certifies the trunk main, storage and treatment headworks complete. That last clause is the switch itself, and it is the reason Devon signed. Devon, you conceded more than anyone at this table and you have it in writing from three seats. Casey, one spine, one mobilisation, one commissioning campaign. Blake, one continuous crew off the referral hall with no crash build and no cliff-edge layoff. The Regional Grid Authority reaffirms its acceptance of P4 — Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. Avery, you have the last word in this negotiation and you said you would not be the reason it breaks. Sign it and Northgate gets built.

ACCEPT P4

0 Averyturn 19 · round 4

I said in my first speech that I would not be the reason this table breaks, and I meant it. Ember answered the phasing question straight and gave a reason I can follow; Blake gave his word and kept it; Devon conceded more than anyone here and took his consideration in enforceable drafting rather than in argument; Casey answered every objection with arithmetic instead of volume. The one thing I asked for on day one — an annual, recurring community fund, paid to the community that lives with this site for thirty years — stands untouched after four rounds, and nobody at this table tried to take it. That is the whole of what I needed. So let the record show what I am signing alongside it, because as landholder I will hold every seat to it: the first three years of the fund ring-fenced to the water spine, works named and specified by the Water Board, disbursed against Devon's programme; no energisation consent until the Water Board certifies that spine complete; co-trenching and co-permitting in shared corridors at the Authority's cost; no referral-hall labour to energisation works until Devon certifies; and ramped connection and headworks charging matched to energised load. Devon, you get the pipe first, before a single rack draws power, and I will back that priority as owner of record. Anvil Ridge, union hall referral, annual community fund, five-year build. Avery accepts P4. Northgate gets built.

ACCEPT P4

A reading guide for the measurements and counterfactuals on this page.

Oracle values and the improvement gap

PRIVATE episode: this oracle is omniscient. The standard saved bestresponse annotation reads every party's hidden score sheet and threshold. It does not infer them from the public conversation. Its recommendation and improvement gap are hindsight diagnostics, not actions or regret from a policy the acting seat could implement.

The oracle is a post-hoc counterfactual evaluator, not another participant. At turn t, it enumerates legal deals, reads the full utility and threshold table, computes continuation values by backward induction over the remaining turns, and selects the highest-valued action. A proposed deal closes only when every responder's surplus clears that responder's computed continuation value.

a^*_t = arg max_a V_t(a)

Oracle's value of the model's move, V_t(a_t), appears with the model's action. Oracle's value of its best move, V_t(a^*_t), appears with the counterfactual action. Their difference is the oracle's value gap:

R_t = V_t(a^*_t) − V_t(a_t) ≥ 0

This is often called regret. A value of 4.18 means the oracle estimates that its best legal move was worth 4.18 more than the model's move. Values are in that oracle's own units: compare moves within the same turn and oracle, not raw values across different seats or oracle types. The result is only as good as the oracle's candidate set, evaluator, and information reconstruction; it is not proof of the uniquely correct move.

Utility, threshold, surplus, and `z`

u_i(d) is party i's score for deal d; τ_i is its walk-away threshold. Raw surplus is u_i(d) − τ_i. Normalized surplus z_i expresses that gain relative to the party's own available range, making differently scaled score sheets more comparable. “Below τ” means a deal is not individually rational for that party.

Frontier and reference points

Each dot is a legal deal. Up and right is better; the Pareto frontier contains deals where no party can gain without another losing. Numbered circles are the model's proposals, orange circles are oracle proposals, and the square is the agreement. NBS, KS, UTIL, EGAL, and MNW are normative reference rules, not additional plays. Hover or focus any point for its deal, scores, party ranking, and the reference rule's definition.

Conversation and issue views

Conversation contains only published messages and formal moves, plus a few provenance annotations that were never published to the table: a turn the engine did not generate, a turn that published nothing, and a turn played by somebody other than the seat's usual occupant. It excludes private scratchpads, prompts, failed attempts that were retried, and post-hoc oracle verdicts. Issues is an analyst's view of a seat's score sheet; in a private-information game, other seats could not see it while negotiating. Both views follow the turn currently in the transcript.

Provenance and generated failures

The annotation label identifies which saved oracle pass supplied the counterfactuals. A “NOT GENERATED” turn is an engine placeholder after generation failed, not an intentional model move. Expand a turn's audit panels to distinguish the published action, private reasoning, reconstructed prompt view, and raw stored text.

scorable_negotiation — scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-220940dc51

The advised seat: what the planner recommended, and what the seat did

All five seats, round by round

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Where every deal sits, and where this episode went

Per-turn value gap against the omniscient hindsight oracle

System prompts (5 distinct)

Transcript — what the model did, and what the omniscient hindsight oracle scores as best

scorable_negotiation — `scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-220940dc51`