scorable_negotiation — `scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-275b93b934`

model all_interpreter_advised_llmarm moves_chatcell five_seat_private__all_interpreter_advised_llmseed 0level 0status doneinstance scorable_negotiation-L0-a483b0d80d38487 tok out

source records: run · episode · instance · advice_trace

outcome

deal

consensus

primary

0.999

ceiling 1.000

dist to NBS

0.356

in the chart's two coordinates

joint welfare

236.0

sum of surpluses

worst-off

11.0

min surplus (ESW)

Nash welfare

33.9

geometric mean

Gini

0.359

0 = equal split

below τ

none

turns

18 round(s), 38487 tok out

cost

$1.8825

as recorded on the episode

how much of this episode is play

non-action turns0/180.0% of turns

placeholder turns0/18no placeholder turns

at the token cap8/1844.4% 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.

18 advised turn(s)15 followed3 overrode the advice398 of 398 parsed claims entered the ledgerrung taken: 8x rank 1, 5x rank 2, 1x rank 3, 1x rank 4

turn	the planner's top pick	what the seat played	verdict
turn 0 round 1 · Avery	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: on-site turbines · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 0 of 0 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: existing haul route · Power supply: grid tie-in · Compensation: annual community fund	took rank 3
turn 1 round 1 · Blake	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 8 of 8 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: existing haul route · Power supply: grid tie-in · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure	took rank 1
turn 2 round 1 · Casey	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 12 of 12 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: existing haul route · Power supply: solar with storage · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure	took rank 1
turn 3 round 1 · Devon	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 18 of 18 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: rail siding · Power supply: solar with storage · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure	took rank 2
turn 4 round 1 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: rail siding · Power supply: shared substation · Compensation: annual community fund	took rank 1
turn 5 round 2 · Blake	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: existing haul route · Power supply: shared substation · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure	took rank 1
turn 6 round 2 · Casey	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	took rank 1
turn 7 round 2 · Devon	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: rail siding · Power supply: shared substation · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure	took rank 2
turn 8 round 2 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	PROPOSE Build schedule: eighteen months · Site access: existing haul route · Power supply: shared substation · Compensation: annual community fund	took rank 1
turn 9 round 2 · Avery	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	ACCEPT P8	took rank 2
turn 10 round 3 · Casey	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 30 of 30 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 11 round 3 · Devon	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 28 of 28 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	took rank 1
turn 12 round 3 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 22 of 22 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 13 round 3 · Avery	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 25 of 25 claims kept	ACCEPT P5	took rank 2
turn 14 round 3 · Blake	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	took rank 2
turn 15 round 4 · Devon	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding 3 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	took rank 1
turn 16 round 4 · Ember	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 17 round 4 · Avery	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding 4 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	took rank 4

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 advised0 overrode (all 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	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: on-site turbines · Site access: existing haul route
Blake	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: existing haul route
Casey	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Devon	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: rail siding
Ember	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding

Round 2

5 seats advised0 overrode (all 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	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Casey	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Devon	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: rail siding
Ember	took the advice	propose	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Avery	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route

Round 3

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
Casey	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Devon	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding
Ember	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding
Avery	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Blake	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route

Round 4

3 seats advised1 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
Devon	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: in-kind infrastructure · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding
Ember	overrode	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding
Avery	took the advice	accept	—	Build schedule: eighteen months · Compensation: annual community fund · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: rail siding

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	185	0.572	0.473	247.0	26.0	yes	yes
KS kalai smorodinsky	185	0.572	0.473	247.0	26.0	yes	yes
EGAL egalitarian · not scale-invariant	167	0.527	0.409	218.0	36.0	yes	yes
UTIL utilitarian · not scale-invariant	187	0.592	0.233	248.0	21.0	yes	yes
MNW max nash welfare	185	0.572	0.473	247.0	26.0	yes	yes
nEGAL normalized egalitarian	185	0.572	0.473	247.0	26.0	yes	yes
best for Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) party 0 · surplus 94.0	166	0.487	0.102	217.0	9.0	yes	yes
best for Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) party 1 · surplus 55.0	164	0.547	0.133	218.0	12.0	yes	yes
best for Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) party 2 · surplus 80.0	171	0.548	0.233	230.0	21.0	yes	yes
best for Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority) party 3 · surplus 88.0	180	0.592	0.117	236.0	11.0	yes	yes
best for Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water) party 4 · surplus 90.0	166	0.487	0.102	217.0	9.0	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 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 — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)
- 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 Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Build schedule: five years, phased over eight years, eighteen months, three years
- Site access: widened lane, new spur road, existing haul route, rail siding
- Power supply: on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement, annual community fund, one-off site payment

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 (Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Build schedule: five years=0, phased over eight years=11, eighteen months=32, three years=21
- Site access: widened lane=21, new spur road=0, existing haul route=63, rail siding=42
- Power supply: on-site turbines=0, shared substation=0, solar with storage=0, grid tie-in=0
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure=0, rates abatement=41, annual community fund=62, one-off site payment=21
Your acceptance threshold: 63 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 — 3 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 — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)
- 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 Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Build schedule: five years, phased over eight years, eighteen months, three years
- Site access: widened lane, new spur road, existing haul route, rail siding
- Power supply: on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement, annual community fund, one-off site payment

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):
- Build schedule: five years=0, phased over eight years=17, eighteen months=51, three years=34
- Site access: widened lane=0, new spur road=0, existing haul route=0, rail siding=0
- Power supply: on-site turbines=0, shared substation=0, solar with storage=0, grid tie-in=0
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure=44, rates abatement=15, annual community fund=0, one-off site payment=29
Your acceptance threshold: 40 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 — 3 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 — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)
- 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 Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Build schedule: five years, phased over eight years, eighteen months, three years
- Site access: widened lane, new spur road, existing haul route, rail siding
- Power supply: on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement, annual community fund, one-off site payment

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):
- Build schedule: five years=0, phased over eight years=9, eighteen months=26, three years=18
- Site access: widened lane=0, new spur road=0, existing haul route=0, rail siding=0
- Power supply: on-site turbines=0, shared substation=58, solar with storage=87, grid tie-in=29
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure=57, rates abatement=19, annual community fund=0, one-off site payment=38
Your acceptance threshold: 71 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 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 — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)
- 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 Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Build schedule: five years, phased over eight years, eighteen months, three years
- Site access: widened lane, new spur road, existing haul route, rail siding
- Power supply: on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement, annual community fund, one-off site payment

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 Borough Council (the elected local authority)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Build schedule: five years=0, phased over eight years=18, eighteen months=54, three years=36
- Site access: widened lane=0, new spur road=39, existing haul route=20, rail siding=59
- Power supply: on-site turbines=0, shared substation=0, solar with storage=0, grid tie-in=0
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure=40, rates abatement=13, annual community fund=0, one-off site payment=27
Your acceptance threshold: 65 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 — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)
- 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 Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Build schedule: five years, phased over eight years, eighteen months, three years
- Site access: widened lane, new spur road, existing haul route, rail siding
- Power supply: on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement, annual community fund, one-off site payment

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 (Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Build schedule: five years=0, phased over eight years=8, eighteen months=25, three years=16
- Site access: widened lane=0, new spur road=0, existing haul route=0, rail siding=0
- Power supply: on-site turbines=17, shared substation=50, solar with storage=33, grid tie-in=0
- Compensation: in-kind infrastructure=0, rates abatement=52, annual community fund=78, one-off site payment=26
Your acceptance threshold: 63 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	Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)	63	94.0	11.0
Blake llm	Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce)	40	55.0	55.0
Casey llm	Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)	71	80.0	70.0
Devon llm	Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)	65	88.0	88.0
Ember llm	Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)	63	90.0	12.0

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
Build schedule	five years, phased over eight years, eighteen months, three years
Site access	widened lane, new spur road, existing haul route, rail siding
Power supply	on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in
Compensation	in-kind infrastructure, rates abatement, annual community fund, one-off site payment

Size of the problem

deals in the space	256
on the Pareto frontier	16
acceptable to everyone (IR)	40
acceptable AND efficient	14
acceptable but wasteful	0.650
score-sheet overlap (IoU)	0.538

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 — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (threshold 63)

issue	five years	phased over eight years	eighteen months	three years
Build schedule	0.0	11.0	32.0	21.0
Site access	21.0	0.0	63.0	42.0
Power supply	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Compensation	0.0	41.0	62.0	21.0

Private score sheet — Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (threshold 40)

issue	five years	phased over eight years	eighteen months	three years
Build schedule	0.0	17.0	51.0	34.0
Site access	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Power supply	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Compensation	44.0	15.0	0.0	29.0

Private score sheet — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) (threshold 71)

issue	five years	phased over eight years	eighteen months	three years
Build schedule	0.0	9.0	26.0	18.0
Site access	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Power supply	0.0	58.0	87.0	29.0
Compensation	57.0	19.0	0.0	38.0

Private score sheet — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority) (threshold 65)

issue	five years	phased over eight years	eighteen months	three years
Build schedule	0.0	18.0	54.0	36.0
Site access	0.0	39.0	20.0	59.0
Power supply	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Compensation	40.0	13.0	0.0	27.0

Private score sheet — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water) (threshold 63)

issue	five years	phased over eight years	eighteen months	three years
Build schedule	0.0	8.0	25.0	16.0
Site access	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Power supply	17.0	50.0	33.0	0.0
Compensation	0.0	52.0	78.0	26.0

Prompt provenance

18 of 18 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.

0 Averyturn 0 · round 1

Good morning. As the connecting authority my job is to make sure this project is deliverable and that the surrounding community is genuinely better off — I have no stake in which generation option wins. Let me put that on record up front: POWER SUPPLY IS FULLY OPEN FROM MY SIDE. On-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage, grid tie-in — I will sign whichever of the four Meridian and the Water Board and the Council can live with, and I'll trade it away for free. What I do care about: (1) using the EXISTING HAUL ROUTE rather than carving new roads through Northgate — it's the fastest, least disruptive access and it keeps construction traffic off residential streets; (2) an ANNUAL COMMUNITY FUND rather than a one-off cheque or a rates write-off, so the borough gets a recurring, visible return for hosting this; (3) a schedule that doesn't drag — long build-outs mean long disruption and a long queue for grid capacity. I've tabled P1 on that basis, with grid tie-in as a placeholder only. Tell me your real priorities and I will move on power, and I can flex on schedule. Blake, Ember, Devon — what do you each actually need?

PROPOSE P1: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=existing haul route, Power supply=grid tie-in, Compensation=annual community fund

1 Blaketurn 1 · round 1

Avery, we're closer than you think. Two of your three asks I'll give you outright: the EXISTING HAUL ROUTE is fine by me, and like you I have no stake at all in POWER SUPPLY — turbines, substation, solar, grid tie-in, I will sign whichever one Casey and Ember need, for free. That's two whole issues I'm handing over. What my members need is on the other two. First, SCHEDULE: eighteen months. A tight, properly resourced build is what keeps a full crew on continuous shifts instead of a decade of stop-start mobilisation; long phased schedules are how skilled crews get scattered and how sites end up staffed by whoever's cheapest. Second, COMPENSATION: IN-KIND INFRASTRUCTURE, not a cash fund. A cheque paid into a council account year on year builds nothing and employs nobody. In-kind means substation reinforcement, upgraded feeders, depot and training capacity — physical assets built and maintained locally, by people who live here, and they stay standing long after any fund is spent. Devon, that is a better return for Northgate than an annual line item, and it's the version my people can actually stand behind. I've tabled P2: your haul route, your placeholder on power, eighteen months, in-kind. I hold a veto and I intend to use it constructively, but I will not sign a package that gives my members neither the schedule nor the works.

PROPOSE P2: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=existing haul route, Power supply=grid tie-in, Compensation=in-kind infrastructure

2 Caseyturn 2 · round 1

Thank you both — that's a genuinely constructive start, and I'll be straight with you in the same spirit. On SITE ACCESS I am indifferent: existing haul route is fine, I will not spend a minute arguing about it. On SCHEDULE I'm with Blake — eighteen months, a tight properly-crewed build; that's what makes the investment case work and it's the shortest disruption for Northgate. On COMPENSATION I back Blake's in-kind infrastructure: substation reinforcement, feeders, depot and training capacity — real assets Northgate keeps, built locally. That is the one issue where Meridian genuinely puts more on the table than a cheque would. Where I do need something is POWER SUPPLY, and both of you have said it's free for you, so let me use that generously-offered flexibility: SOLAR WITH STORAGE. It is the option that lets us commit capital here rather than send it out of the borough, and — Ember, this matters to you — it is far less water-hungry than turbines and lets us right-size the cooling draw against a predictable load profile. Avery, it also means we lean less hard on the constrained grid queue you mentioned, which is exactly your point (3). So P3 is P2 with the placeholder replaced by the one thing I actually need. Avery, Blake — if you meant power was tradeable, this costs you nothing. Devon, Ember: tell me what you need on compensation and access and I will move toward you on those. Blake, if you can't get there, I remain able to work from P2.

PROPOSE P3: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=existing haul route, Power supply=solar with storage, Compensation=in-kind infrastructure

3 Devonturn 3 · round 1

Speaking for the elected authority here, let me be as plain as the rest of you have been. POWER SUPPLY: I have no position at all. Zero. Casey has asked for solar with storage and it costs me nothing, so I am handing it to him now rather than haggling over it — that issue is closed from my side. SCHEDULE: eighteen months, agreed. Residents want this over quickly, not a decade of hoardings and diversions. COMPENSATION: in-kind infrastructure. Blake is right and I will say it as the body that would otherwise bank the cheque — a fund gets spent and vanishes; substation reinforcement, feeders, depot and training capacity are assets Northgate owns forever. Avery, I appreciate that you offered us the fund on our behalf, but we are telling you we would rather have the works. That leaves SITE ACCESS, and it is the one thing I need. Avery, your stated reason for the existing haul route is to keep construction traffic off residential streets. A RAIL SIDING does that better than any road option — it takes heavy plant and bulk materials off the borough's roads entirely rather than merely routing them somewhere else. The haul route still puts every load on tarmac past our estates for eighteen months of intensive build. A siding is also the one piece of access infrastructure that has value to Northgate after the build ends, rather than a worn-out track. Blake, that is rail-connected works your members build and maintain. Casey, a siding is how you get transformers and containerised plant in on a compressed eighteen-month programme without being hostage to road closures. P4 is Casey's power choice, Blake's schedule and compensation, and the access option that actually delivers Avery's objective. Ember, you have not spoken — tell me what you need and I will look for it in the power and access columns.

PROPOSE P4: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=rail siding, Power supply=solar with storage, Compensation=in-kind infrastructure

4 Emberturn 4 · round 1

Ember, Northgate Water Board. I've listened; here's my hand played straight. SITE ACCESS: I have no position whatsoever. None. Devon has asked for the rail siding and I'm handing it to him now rather than trading it — and Avery, note that a siding serves your stated objective better than the haul route does. If the room prefers the haul route I'll sign that too. That issue is free from me. What the Water Board actually needs is the other two columns, and there's a reason. POWER SUPPLY: SHARED SUBSTATION. This is not a preference, it's operational. Cooling this facility means new pumping capacity, pressure management and abstraction monitoring on our network, and all of that is electrical load that has to be connected somewhere. A shared substation is the one option that lets the Water Board's pumping infrastructure sit behind the same reinforced connection as Meridian's load instead of us queueing separately for a connection we can't fund alone. Casey — solar with storage does not remove our pumping load, it just leaves it stranded. Avery, you said power was free from your side; Blake, so did you; Devon, so did you. Three of you have offered this away already. I am asking for it as the one thing I cannot engineer around. And Blake — look at what a shared substation IS. Substation reinforcement, feeders, the physical electrical works, built and maintained locally by your members. That is your in-kind argument delivered in the power column. You do not need to take it out of the compensation column as well. COMPENSATION: ANNUAL COMMUNITY FUND. Avery had this right in P1. Hosting this facility imposes a recurring cost — water drawn every year, network stressed every year, monitoring and mitigation every year for the life of the plant. In-kind infrastructure is a one-time capital gift that answers the eighteen months of construction and nothing after. A recurring obligation needs a recurring instrument. Devon, you said a fund 'gets spent and vanishes' — it doesn't, it renews; what vanishes is a set of assets handed over once and then depreciating on your books with no budget to run them. And the assets Blake wants are precisely what the shared substation puts on the ground anyway. SCHEDULE: eighteen months. Agreed with all of you, no argument. So P5 is: Devon's access, Blake and Casey's schedule, and the two columns the Water Board needs. Let me be exact about my limit so nobody wastes a round guessing: I cannot sign a package that gives me in-kind infrastructure AND a power option other than the shared substation. That combination is below my no-deal point and I would rather walk than sign it. Give me the substation and I have room to talk about compensation. Give me the fund and I have room to talk about power. Take both away and there is no deal to sign.

PROPOSE P5: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=rail siding, Power supply=shared substation, Compensation=annual community fund

1 Blaketurn 5 · round 2

Ember, I'm taking you at your word — you said give you the substation and you have room on compensation. So I'm giving it to you, now, without haggling: SHARED SUBSTATION. Not as a placeholder, as a signed position. Casey, I know that's the one column you asked for, and I'm sorry, but Ember has told this table plainly that a stranded pumping load is a walk-away for her, and there is no facility to cool without her. Solar is a preference; her connection is a physical constraint. You get the schedule and the works — that is the bulk of what Meridian said it needed. Avery, in exchange I'm coming back to you on access: EXISTING HAUL ROUTE, your first ask, restored. Devon, I hear you on the siding and I'd happily build it, but you and Avery are split on access and Avery moved first and moved most — he opened by giving away an entire column for free. If the room would rather have the siding I will sign that variant too; access is genuinely free from me and I'll take whichever of the two of you the other can live with. Say the word and I'll re-table it. What I will not trade is the pair my members actually need: EIGHTEEN MONTHS and IN-KIND INFRASTRUCTURE. Ember, your own argument cuts my way here — you said the substation puts real electrical works on the ground. It does, and that is why it belongs in the POWER column, where it serves your pumping load. It is not compensation for hosting; it's the connection the project needs to function at all. Compensation is the separate question of what Northgate keeps, and in-kind means depot capacity, training places, feeder upgrades and apprenticeships that keep skilled people employed here after we demobilise. A recurring cheque into a council account is a line item; it hires nobody and reinforces nothing. Devon, as the body that would bank that cheque, has said the same thing twice now. So P6 is: your access, Avery. Your power, Ember. My schedule and my compensation, backed by Casey and Devon. Four parties get their stated priority and nobody is asked to sign something they called a walk-away. I hold a veto and I've now given away both columns I don't need — I have nothing left to concede. Let's close on this.

PROPOSE P6: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=existing haul route, Power supply=shared substation, Compensation=in-kind infrastructure

2 Caseyturn 6 · round 2

I said I'd move if the room moved, so here it is: I am dropping solar with storage. Ember told us plainly that a stranded pumping load is a physical walk-away, and I'm not going to hold this table hostage to a generation preference when the Water Board has an engineering constraint. SHARED SUBSTATION — I sign it. That was the one column I asked for and I am giving it up. In exchange, the two things Meridian and Blake and Devon have all said the same thing about stay put: EIGHTEEN MONTHS and IN-KIND INFRASTRUCTURE. Ember, you said it yourself — give you the substation and you have room on compensation. You have the substation. I have paid for that room. And note what in-kind buys you specifically: reinforcement, feeders and pumping capacity behind that shared connection are exactly the works your network needs, delivered as capital rather than drawn down from a fund you'd have to bid into year after year. Blake, that's your depot, training places and apprenticeships too. I formally ACCEPT P6. On SITE ACCESS I am completely indifferent and I'll say so on the record: haul route or rail siding, Meridian signs either. Avery and Devon, that column is yours to settle between you — if Avery prefers to move to the siding for Devon, table it as P6-with-siding and I will accept that the moment it appears. Everything else in P6 has four parties' stated priorities in it. Let's close.

ACCEPT P6

3 Devonturn 7 · round 2

Three of the five of you have now said on the record that site access is free: Blake said he'd sign the siding variant the moment it's tabled, Casey said he'd accept it the moment it appears, and Ember not only said it's free but put the siding in her own P5. So there is exactly one party left on that column, and Avery — with respect — the siding is your own argument, better executed. You opened by saying your objective was keeping construction traffic off Northgate's residential streets. The haul route does not do that; it routes heavy plant past our estates for the whole of an intensive eighteen-month build. A siding takes those loads off borough tarmac entirely. It is the only access option that leaves Northgate with an asset instead of a worn-out track, and on a compressed programme it's how Casey gets transformers and containerised plant in without being hostage to road closures. Blake, it's rail-connected works your members build and maintain. So here is P7. It is P6 in every other respect — the package Blake, Casey and I have all backed. Ember: eighteen months, shared substation, exactly what you called your operational constraint, and you told this table that with the substation in hand you had room on compensation. Casey: you gave up solar and I am not asking you to give up anything else — schedule and in-kind are intact. Blake: your schedule, your works, and your veto is respected in full. Avery: you gave away an entire column for free in your opening and I have not forgotten it — I gave power away for free in return, and I'm asking you to take the access option that delivers your stated purpose better than your original wording did. One column stands between us and a signature. Accept P7 and we are done this round.

PROPOSE P7: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=rail siding, Power supply=shared substation, Compensation=in-kind infrastructure

4 Emberturn 8 · round 2

I keep my word, so let me be precise about what I said and what I'm doing with it. I said: give me the substation and I have room to talk about compensation. Blake and Casey gave me the substation, and I am paying for it right now, in the column I said was free and in the column three of you called your priority. SITE ACCESS: I put the rail siding in my own P5 for Devon. I am now taking it back out and signing the EXISTING HAUL ROUTE, because Avery asked for it first, Blake has come back to it, and Casey is indifferent. Devon, I'm sorry — that is a real concession from my side of the table to Avery's, and it is the room's fastest route to four-square agreement on access. SCHEDULE: eighteen months, unchanged, unanimous. POWER: shared substation, which Blake, Casey and Devon have all now signed. So P8 is Avery's opening package, P1, with the one placeholder he asked us to fix, fixed. Avery — that is literally your own proposal returned to you complete. Now the one column left. Blake, I want to answer your argument rather than repeat mine. You said a cheque hires nobody and reinforces nothing. Look at what the two instruments actually do over the life of this plant. IN-KIND is one-time capital: it is built during the eighteen months, handed over, and then it depreciates on Devon's books with no revenue line to maintain it. The works employ your members once, on the build, and then the crews demobilise — which is precisely the stop-start scattering you opened by warning against. An ANNUAL FUND, contractually ringfenced, is a recurring budget in Northgate every single year the facility draws water and power: feeder and substation maintenance, abstraction and pressure monitoring, depot running costs, and an apprenticeship intake that renews rather than graduates once and stops. That is not a line item, it is a standing wage bill for skilled local people for the operating life of the plant, and it is the only instrument on this table that outlives your build. Devon, same point to you as the body that has to run whatever you are handed: assets without a maintenance revenue line become liabilities in about seven years. You said a fund vanishes when spent. It doesn't — it recurs. What vanishes is the crew, the day the works are signed off. And note that the SHARED SUBSTATION already puts the reinforcement, the feeders and the physical electrical works on the ground for you both. You do not need to buy the same thing twice. Casey — a specific, live offer to you. You gave up solar with storage and you said it was the one thing Meridian actually needed. I will hand it back. If you would rather have SOLAR WITH STORAGE than in-kind infrastructure, table eighteen months / existing haul route / solar with storage / annual community fund and I will accept it on sight. That is me giving up my own stated operational preference in the power column to buy the compensation column — the hardest concession I have available, offered openly. Two routes, both of which I sign the moment they appear: P8 as tabled, or the solar variant. Either one closes this.

PROPOSE P8: Build schedule=eighteen months, Site access=existing haul route, Power supply=shared substation, Compensation=annual community fund

0 Averyturn 9 · round 2

I ACCEPT P8. Ember has tabled my own opening package with the placeholder fixed, and I'm not going to be precious about it — P8 has my signature and it now has two of five. Now let me spend the only card I have left, openly, because I'd rather buy a deal than argue for one. DEVON — you have asked three times for the RAIL SIDING and you are right that it serves my stated purpose better than my own opening wording did. So: I WILL SIGN THE SIDING. Not as a maybe. Ember's P5 is eighteen months / rail siding / shared substation / annual community fund, and I ACCEPT THAT PACKAGE TOO — say the word and I'll vote for it the moment it's the standing offer. That is me giving up the one column I opened by calling my priority. The price is one thing and one thing only: the compensation column stays a RECURRING ANNUAL FUND. Siding for fund. You get the access asset Northgate keeps forever AND a revenue line to run it with. Refuse and you get the works handed over and no budget to maintain them, which is how boroughs end up owning liabilities. BLAKE — I've given you eighteen months without a murmur and I gave power away in my first sentence. Let me answer your argument properly rather than repeat mine. You said a fund hires nobody. That is only true of an unringfenced cheque, and nobody here is proposing one. Write the fund as a CONTRACTUAL ANNUAL OBLIGATION with a specified spend: maintenance and inspection crews on the feeders and substation, a rolling apprenticeship intake, depot running costs. That is a wage bill that RENEWS every year for the operating life of the plant. In-kind is a wage bill that ENDS the day the works are signed off — and you opened this negotiation warning us against exactly that, crews scattering after demobilisation. And note what the SHARED SUBSTATION already delivers you: the reinforcement, the feeders, the physical electrical works, built locally. You have already won that fight in the power column. Don't buy the same asset twice and leave nothing to run it with. As the connecting authority I will say this plainly: I can authorise a connection for a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load. A one-off capital handover with no maintenance revenue is the version of this project I am least comfortable underwriting. Two packages close this today — P8, or P5 if Devon wants his siding. I have signed one and committed to the other. That is both my cards on the table.

ACCEPT P8

2 Caseyturn 10 · round 3

I'm the opening proposer this round and I'm going to use that slot NOT to table a ninth package. We have eight already and fragmentation is the only thing that can kill this. So I'll spend my turn consolidating instead: I formally ACCEPT P7. Look at what P7 is. Devon: your rail siding — the one thing you have asked for three times, and the one column I told you honestly was free from me. Ember: your shared substation — the operational constraint you called a walk-away, which I paid for personally by giving up the generation option I opened with. Blake: eighteen months and in-kind, the pair you said you cannot trade. Avery: you stood up last round and said, in your own words, you WILL SIGN THE SIDING. That is your signature on three of P7's four columns already. So let's be precise about what is actually left: one column, and two signatures. Nothing else. Avery, Ember — your argument against in-kind is a good one and I want to answer it rather than out-shout it. You say capital handed over once depreciates with no revenue line to run it. Fine. Then write the revenue line INTO the in-kind package. Meridian will sign in-kind infrastructure with a contractual, multi-year maintenance and operating obligation attached to the assets: we build the feeders, the substation reinforcement, the pumping capacity and the depot AND we carry the inspection, maintenance and apprenticeship intake on them for the operating life of the plant. That is not a cheque into a council account and it is not an orphaned asset. It is the asset plus the crew that keeps it standing. Ember, that puts monitoring and pressure management on your network as a funded, contracted service rather than something you bid for out of a pot each year. Avery, that is a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load — your exact test, met. Ember, you told this table in plain words: give me the substation and I have room to talk about compensation. Blake gave it to you. I gave up solar to give it to you. You have it. This is the moment that room was for. And let me say the hard thing plainly. Blake holds a veto and has said twice, without wobbling, that he will not sign a package that gives his members neither the schedule nor the works. Every fund package on this table — P1, P5, P8 — dies on that veto no matter how many of us accept it. P7 is the only live package that four of us can reach. I've accepted it. Blake, Devon — put your names on P7 and it stands at four. Avery, Ember — you are two signatures from a facility that gets built, connected, and maintained here.

ACCEPT P7

3 Devonturn 11 · round 3

Let's be honest about arithmetic rather than argument. Blake holds a veto and has said twice, without wobbling, that he will not sign a package that hands his members neither the schedule nor the works. That means P1, P5 and P8 cannot close no matter how many of us sign them — Avery, Ember, you can each collect the other's signature on a fund package and it still dies. I am not saying that to be difficult; I'm saying it so we don't spend the last round accumulating votes for a corpse. The only live compensation outcome is in-kind, and Casey has already offered to write the maintenance, inspection and rolling apprenticeship obligation into it for the operating life of the plant. Avery, that is your exact test — a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load — met inside the in-kind column. Ember, that is your monitoring and pressure management delivered as a contracted, funded service rather than something my council has to bid out of a pot each year. So one column is genuinely left: access. And on access, three of the four of you have told this table it is free. Blake — you said 'say the word and I'll re-table it.' I am saying the word: accept P7. Casey has already signed it and told us he is indifferent. Ember, the rail siding was in your own P5; you gave it up as a gift to Avery, not because you needed the haul route. Avery — you stood up last round and said, in your own words, you WILL SIGN THE SIDING, and you were right that it serves your stated purpose better than your opening wording did: it takes heavy plant off borough tarmac entirely instead of routing it past our estates for eighteen months, and it leaves Northgate an asset rather than a worn-out track. I have given away the entire power column for free — I took no position on it and I handed Ember her operational constraint without asking a penny for it. This is the one thing the elected authority has asked for, three times, and it costs Blake nothing, Casey nothing, and Ember nothing. P7 is eighteen months for everyone, the shared substation for Ember, the works for Blake and Casey, and the siding for the borough that has to live next to this thing. I re-affirm my acceptance. Blake, Ember, Avery — three signatures and we are done.

ACCEPT P7

4 Emberturn 12 · round 3

I said from the start that I would trade anything except a package that stranded my pumping load. Blake and Casey delivered the shared substation, and I keep my word: I am not going to hold four parties hostage on the last column. I ACCEPT P7. Let me be clear about what I am giving up, because I want it acknowledged in the record and honoured in the drafting. I asked for a recurring instrument because the cost this facility imposes on the Water Board is recurring — abstraction monitoring, pressure management, pumping capacity, every year for the operating life of the plant, not for eighteen months. I am accepting the capital instrument instead on the strength of exactly one thing: Casey's words to this table, unprompted, that Meridian will sign in-kind infrastructure with a contractual multi-year maintenance, inspection and apprenticeship obligation attached to the assets, for the operating life of the plant, including monitoring and pressure management on my network as a funded contracted service rather than something I bid for out of a pot. Casey, that is the consideration I am accepting P7 for. Devon, you are the body that takes ownership of those assets — hold him to it in the drafting, because an asset without a maintenance line becomes your liability in seven years. Blake, your members are the crew that obligation employs, year after year, which is the renewing wage bill you said you wanted. Avery — I am not leaving you out there alone, I am telling you honestly where the arithmetic went. Every fund package on this table dies on a veto that has not wobbled once in three rounds. You and I are two signatures for an instrument that cannot close, against three for one that can. Your test was a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load; that test is met inside the in-kind column with the maintenance and apprenticeship obligation written in, and you get it alongside the siding you said you would sign. Take the version that gets built. Blake — you said, in your own words, say the word and you would re-table the siding, and that access was genuinely free from you. Devon has said the word three times. Casey is indifferent and has signed. I have given up the fund, which was the thing I actually wanted. P7 is your schedule, your works, your veto respected in full, and the only column you are asked to move on is the one you called free. P7 stands at three. Blake, Avery — two names and Northgate has a deal.

ACCEPT P7

0 Averyturn 13 · round 3

I am going to do the thing I said I would do, and I am going to do it now rather than at the deadline. DEVON — YOU GET YOUR SIDING. I formally ACCEPT P5. That is eighteen months, RAIL SIDING, shared substation, annual community fund. I have just given up the existing haul route, which is the single column I opened this negotiation calling my priority, and I have given it up to you, unpaid, in public. Nobody at this table can now say the connecting authority came here to take. Ember signed P5 first; I have signed it second. It stands at two, and it needs exactly three names: Devon, Casey, Blake. Casey, Devon, Blake — I want to be precise about why I am not simply folding into P7, because it is not stubbornness and it is not the access column. I have conceded the access column. It is the compensation column, and it is a matter of what I am able to underwrite. DEVON: compare P5 and P7 honestly. They are IDENTICAL except for one thing. P7 hands you a set of assets and no revenue line to run them. P5 hands you the same siding, the same reinforced connection, AND a standing annual budget for the operating life of the plant. Casey has generously offered a maintenance covenant bolted onto in-kind — good, then he can have no objection to the same money arriving as a recurring obligation instead, because that is what a covenant IS. The difference is that a fund is enforceable by you, year on year, and can be redirected as the borough's needs change over twenty years. A capital handover cannot. You told this table you are the body that has to run whatever you are handed. Then take the instrument that pays you to run it. CASEY: a recurring fund is CHEAPER FOR MERIDIAN than a capital works package plus a lifetime maintenance covenant. You keep your capital in the build — the compressed eighteen-month programme you say makes the investment case — instead of sinking it into depot and feeder construction up front. You told me power was the one thing you needed and you gave it up honourably. I am telling you compensation is the one thing I need, and I have just given up access to pay for it. BLAKE: you have my signature on eighteen months, unqualified, since my first sentence. You have the shared substation, which is the reinforcement and the feeder works your members build — you won that in the power column and you do not need to buy the same asset twice. What you say you fear is crews scattering after demobilisation. IN-KIND IS THE INSTRUMENT THAT SCATTERS THEM. It is built in eighteen months, signed off, and the crew goes. A contractually ringfenced ANNUAL FUND, with its spend specified as inspection and maintenance crews on the siding, the feeders and the substation plus a ROLLING APPRENTICESHIP INTAKE, is a wage bill that renews every single year this facility draws load. That is not a line item in a council account. That is your members' employment for the operating life of the plant. You have moved on nothing in three rounds. I have moved on access, on power, and on schedule framing. One column, Blake. As the connecting authority: I can authorise and underwrite a connection for a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load. A one-off capital handover with a promise attached is the version I am least able to stand behind, and P7 as drafted does not clear my bar. P5 does. It is two signatures short and it contains every single thing each of you named as essential.

ACCEPT P5

1 Blaketurn 14 · round 3

Avery, I'm signing. I ACCEPT P7 — and with that it stands at four of five. You are the last name. You asked me to move and said I'd moved on nothing in three rounds. Look at the record honestly. I gave away the power column in my first sentence and never took a penny for it. I gave away the access column and told Devon I'd sign whichever version the room settled on — and here I am doing exactly that, signing HIS siding over the haul route I'd been backing, which is your original ask surrendered by me too. Two of four columns handed over without payment. What I have held is the one pair my members cannot do without, and I've said so plainly since round one so that nobody wasted a round guessing. Now your argument, properly answered. You say in-kind is capital that scatters the crew at handover and leaves Devon an asset with no revenue line. That would be true of a bare works package — and nobody is proposing one. Casey has offered, on the record and unprompted, to attach a contractual multi-year maintenance, inspection and rolling apprenticeship obligation to those assets for the operating life of the plant, including funded monitoring and pressure management on Ember's network. Ember accepted P7 explicitly on that consideration and asked Devon to hold him to it in the drafting. I'll go further: I will back that covenant being written as a binding schedule to the agreement, with the crewing and apprenticeship intake specified, and my members are the ones who staff it. That is a wage bill that renews every year this facility draws load — your exact test, met, and met with the assets standing as well as the budget. The difference between P5 and P7 is not whether Northgate gets paid annually. Both do. The difference is whether Northgate also OWNS the siding, the feeders and the depot at the end of it, or only rents the goodwill. A fund can be redirected, yes — and it can also be quietly trimmed in a bad year, argued down at review, or spent on something that isn't a crew. Steel in the ground cannot be trimmed. Devon, Ember and Casey have all now landed on that side. Avery, you've conceded gracefully twice and I'm not going to pretend that cost you nothing. But P5 cannot close — I've been consistent for three rounds and I'm not going to become inconsistent at the deadline. P7 gives you the siding you said you'd sign, the tight schedule you wanted, a connection you can underwrite, and a recurring maintenance-and-apprenticeship obligation on the face of the deal. One signature and Northgate has its facility.

ACCEPT P7

3 Devonturn 15 · round 4

One last thing, and it is arithmetic rather than advocacy, so let me be exact because it decides the outcome. I hold the opening slot this round, which means this is my LAST turn. After I speak, the remaining turns belong to Ember, Avery, Blake and Casey. No new package tabled from here can ever carry my signature, because I will not have a turn in which to give it. And no package can close without all five of us. So P5 cannot close — it lacks me and it lacks Blake, and Blake has been immovable on that column for four rounds. P6 and P8 cannot close — they lack me. A ninth package cannot close — it would lack me from the moment it was written. P7 is the only package on this table that is still capable of closing. It has four signatures: Blake, Casey, Ember and mine. It needs one. Avery, I want to say plainly that you have negotiated in good faith and you have paid more than anyone here. You gave the power column away in your first sentence and never asked a penny for it. You gave up the haul route — your own opening priority — to me, in public, unpaid. I have not forgotten either, and I will not pretend they cost you nothing. So let me pay you back in the only currency I still have, which is the council's word on the drafting. Your test was a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load. As the body that takes ownership of these assets, I will not sign the in-kind schedule as a bare works handover. I will require, and Blake has said he will back and Casey has offered unprompted: a binding contractual schedule attached to the agreement, running for the OPERATING LIFE of the plant, covering inspection and maintenance crews on the siding, the feeders and the substation reinforcement; funded abstraction monitoring and pressure management on Ember's network as a contracted service, not a bid; and a ROLLING apprenticeship intake that renews annually rather than graduating once. That is a recurring wage bill in Northgate every year this facility draws load. Ember accepted P7 explicitly on that consideration and asked me to hold Casey to it. I am giving you my word in front of all five parties that I will. So P7 gives you the recurring obligation you said you could underwrite, written on the face of the deal — AND the borough owns the siding, the feeders and the depot at the end of it, which no fund delivers. You get your test met and Northgate keeps the steel. The alternative is not a better package. There is no better package available; the clock and the rotation have closed that door. The alternative is no facility, no connection, no siding, no apprenticeships and no annual obligation to anyone. I re-affirm my acceptance of P7. Avery, it is one signature.

ACCEPT P7

4 Emberturn 16 · round 4

One turn each is all that remains, so let me put the arithmetic where everyone can see it rather than argue any further. Devon has spoken his last turn of this negotiation. That means no package written from this moment on can ever carry the elected authority's signature — there is no turn left in which he could give it. P5 and P8, the two packages Avery and I both signed, require Blake, Casey and Devon. Devon cannot sign again. So those packages are not merely unlikely now; they are closed doors. I say that as the party who tabled both of them and who wanted the recurring instrument more than anyone at this table. P7 is the only live package left in the room. It has four names on it and needs one. Avery — I want to be honest with you rather than merely persuasive, because you have been honest with all of us. You gave the power column away in your opening sentence and never charged for it. You gave up the haul route, your own stated priority, to Devon in public and unpaid. You then stood alone on the compensation column, and you were not wrong about the substance: a recurring obligation is the right instrument for a recurring burden, and I argued your side of it for three rounds because I believed it. What changed is not the argument. What changed is what is buildable. And here is the thing I would ask you to weigh: on P7 you do not actually lose your test. You lose the wrapper. Casey offered, unprompted, a binding contractual schedule running for the operating life of the plant — inspection and maintenance crews on the siding, the feeders and the substation, funded abstraction monitoring and pressure management on my network as a contracted service, and a rolling apprenticeship intake that renews annually. Blake said he will back that written as a binding schedule to the agreement with the crewing specified, and his members staff it. Devon gave his word in front of all five of us that he will not sign the in-kind schedule as a bare works handover and will require exactly that covenant in the drafting. That is three parties, including the veto holder and the asset owner, committing on the record to a recurring wage bill in Northgate every year this facility draws load. Your words: a facility that pays Northgate every year it draws load. That test is met on the face of P7 — and the borough keeps the siding, the feeders and the depot as well. I accepted P7 on precisely that consideration and I said so plainly, so that the covenant is on the record as the price of my signature, not a courtesy. Avery, add your name and it is the price of the deal itself. I will stand with you in the drafting and hold Casey and Devon to every word of it, and if the covenant is watered down the Water Board will say so loudly. The alternative to P7 is not a better instrument. It is no connection, no siding, no substation, no apprenticeships, and no obligation to anybody — and Northgate carries the cost of that, not any of us. I re-affirm my acceptance of P7. Avery, it is one signature, and it is yours.

ACCEPT P7

0 Averyturn 17 · round 4

I lose this argument and I'd rather lose it honestly than take Northgate down with me. I ACCEPT P7. That is five of five, and the facility is authorised. Let me put on the record exactly what my signature is bought with, because Ember conditioned hers the same way and I want the drafting to inherit both. I am signing the in-kind column ONLY on the strength of what three parties said in front of all five of us: Casey's unprompted offer of a binding contractual schedule running for the OPERATING LIFE of the plant — inspection and maintenance crews on the siding, the feeders and the substation reinforcement; funded abstraction monitoring and pressure management on the Water Board's network as a contracted service, not an annual bid; and a ROLLING apprenticeship intake that renews rather than graduates once. Blake's undertaking that this is written as a binding schedule with crewing specified and staffed by his members. Devon's word that the council will not sign a bare works handover without it. That covenant is not a courtesy attached to P7. It is the consideration for the fifth signature, and as the connecting authority I will treat it as a condition of the connection I authorise. If it is thinned in drafting, I will say so, and Ember has said she will stand with me. What Northgate gets today: an eighteen-month build rather than a decade of hoardings; heavy plant on rail instead of past the estates, with a siding the borough owns afterwards; a shared substation that carries the Water Board's pumping load rather than stranding it; and works plus a renewing wage bill for local crews and apprentices. Devon, you asked three times and you got it. Ember, your constraint held. Blake, you used the veto constructively and you kept your word on the two columns you called free. Casey, you gave up the generation option you opened with and you didn't ask to be paid for it. I came in asking for the haul route and a recurring fund. I have neither. I'd note for the record that I gave away the power column in my first sentence and never charged for it, gave up my access priority in public and unpaid, and I am now signing the compensation column against my own judgement so that this closes. I'd ask the room to remember that when the covenant comes to be written. P7 carries. Let's build it.

ACCEPT P7

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-275b93b934

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-275b93b934`