scorable_negotiation — `scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-7181763c40`

model all_interpreter_advised_llmarm moves_chatcell five_seat_private__all_interpreter_advised_llmseed 0level 0status doneinstance scorable_negotiation-L0-34733a57e640111 tok out

source records: run · episode · instance · advice_trace

outcome

deal

consensus

primary

0.698

ceiling 1.000

dist to NBS

0.401

in the chart's two coordinates

joint welfare

186.0

sum of surpluses

worst-off

0.0

min surplus (ESW)

Nash welfare

0.0

geometric mean

Gini

0.374

0 = equal split

below τ

none

turns

20 round(s), 40111 tok out

cost

$1.9649

as recorded on the episode

how much of this episode is play

non-action turns2/2010.0% of turns

placeholder turns0/20no placeholder turns

at the token cap5/2025.0% 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)6 followed14 overrode the advice484 of 484 parsed claims entered the ledgerrung taken: 3x rank 1, 1x rank 2, 1x rank 3, 1x rank 4

turn	the planner's top pick	what the seat played	verdict
turn 0 round 1 · Avery	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Dunlow Yard · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: widened lane 4 candidate(s) ranked · 0 of 0 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: existing haul route · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Dunlow Yard · Power supply: solar with storage	overrode own surplus +0.0 vs the top pick
turn 1 round 1 · Blake	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 4 of 4 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: existing haul route · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation	took rank 1
turn 2 round 1 · Casey	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 9 of 9 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: existing haul route · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: on-site turbines	overrode own surplus -15.0 vs the top pick
turn 3 round 1 · Devon	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 17 of 17 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: existing haul route · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: on-site turbines	took rank 2
turn 4 round 1 · Ember	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: widened lane 4 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: new spur road · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation	overrode own surplus -14.0 vs the top pick
turn 5 round 2 · Blake	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: existing haul route · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation	overrode own surplus -57.0 vs the top pick
turn 6 round 2 · Casey	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 24 of 24 claims kept	PROPOSE Site access: existing haul route · Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: grid tie-in	overrode own surplus -30.0 vs the top pick
turn 7 round 2 · Devon	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 25 of 25 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 8 round 2 · Ember	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 26 of 26 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	took rank 1
turn 9 round 2 · Avery	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 30 of 30 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 10 round 3 · Casey	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 31 of 31 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 11 round 3 · Devon	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 30 of 30 claims kept	ACCEPT P7	overrode
turn 12 round 3 · Ember	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 29 of 29 claims kept	NONE	overrode
turn 13 round 3 · Avery	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 30 of 30 claims kept	REJECT P6	overrode
turn 14 round 3 · Blake	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Dunlow Yard · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 31 of 31 claims kept	NONE	overrode
turn 15 round 4 · Devon	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	overrode
turn 16 round 4 · Ember	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 32 of 32 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	overrode
turn 17 round 4 · Avery	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 4 candidate(s) ranked · 27 of 27 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	took rank 4
turn 18 round 4 · Blake	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 31 of 31 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	took rank 1
turn 19 round 4 · Casey	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route 3 candidate(s) ranked · 31 of 31 claims kept	ACCEPT P6	took rank 3

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 advised3 overrode (all measurable)own surplus given up: 29.0taken: 0.0

seat	verdict	move	own surplus vs its own top pick	the package its planner ranked first
Avery	overrode	propose	+0.0	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Dunlow Yard · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: widened lane
Blake	took the advice	propose	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Casey	overrode	propose	-15.0	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Devon	took the advice	propose	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Ember	overrode	propose	-14.0	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: widened lane

Round 2

5 seats advised4 overrode (2 of them measurable)own surplus given up: 87.0taken: 0.0

seat	verdict	move	own surplus vs its own top pick	the package its planner ranked first
Blake	overrode	propose	-57.0	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Weir Flats · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Casey	overrode	propose	-30.0	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Devon	overrode	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Ember	took the advice	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Avery	overrode	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route

Round 3

5 seats advised5 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	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Devon	overrode	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Ember	overrode	none	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Avery	overrode	reject	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Blake	overrode	none	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Dunlow Yard · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route

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
Devon	overrode	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Ember	overrode	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: grid tie-in · Site access: existing haul route
Avery	took the advice	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route
Blake	took the advice	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: shared substation · Site access: existing haul route
Casey	took the advice	accept	—	Hiring: open recruitment · Location: Anvil Ridge · Power supply: solar with storage · Site access: existing haul route

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	229	0.490	0.388	208.0	33.0	yes	yes
KS kalai smorodinsky	229	0.490	0.388	208.0	33.0	yes	yes
EGAL egalitarian · not scale-invariant	229	0.490	0.388	208.0	33.0	yes	yes
UTIL utilitarian · not scale-invariant	36	0.456	0.181	210.0	15.0	yes	yes
MNW max nash welfare	229	0.490	0.388	208.0	33.0	yes	yes
best for Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority) party 0 · surplus 67.0	39	0.556	0.000	209.0	0.0	yes	yes
best for Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) party 1 · surplus 86.0	36	0.456	0.181	210.0	15.0	yes	yes
best for Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites) party 2 · surplus 71.0	39	0.556	0.000	209.0	0.0	yes	yes
best for Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) party 3 · surplus 51.0	39	0.556	0.000	209.0	0.0	yes	yes
best for Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water) party 4 · surplus 84.0	226	0.364	0.000	187.0	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 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 — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Blake — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)
- Devon — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Site access: existing haul route, rail siding, widened lane, new spur road
- Hiring: local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, open recruitment, union hall referral
- Location: Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge
- Power supply: grid tie-in, on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage

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 (Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Site access: existing haul route=0, rail siding=0, widened lane=0, new spur road=0
- Hiring: local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=15, open recruitment=44, union hall referral=29
- Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=0, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=0
- Power supply: grid tie-in=22, on-site turbines=45, shared substation=0, solar with storage=67
Your acceptance threshold: 44 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 — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Blake — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)
- Devon — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Site access: existing haul route, rail siding, widened lane, new spur road
- Hiring: local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, open recruitment, union hall referral
- Location: Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge
- Power supply: grid tie-in, on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage

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 (Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Site access: existing haul route=0, rail siding=0, widened lane=0, new spur road=0
- Hiring: local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=15, open recruitment=44, union hall referral=29
- Location: Dunlow Yard=19, Weir Flats=57, Kestrel Park=38, Anvil Ridge=0
- Power supply: grid tie-in=66, on-site turbines=33, shared substation=99, solar with storage=0
Your acceptance threshold: 81 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 — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Blake — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)
- Devon — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Site access: existing haul route, rail siding, widened lane, new spur road
- Hiring: local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, open recruitment, union hall referral
- Location: Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge
- Power supply: grid tie-in, on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage

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 (Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Site access: existing haul route=52, rail siding=17, widened lane=0, new spur road=35
- Hiring: local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=8, open recruitment=24, union hall referral=16
- Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=0, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=0
- Power supply: grid tie-in=15, on-site turbines=30, shared substation=0, solar with storage=45
Your acceptance threshold: 50 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 — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Blake — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)
- Devon — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Site access: existing haul route, rail siding, widened lane, new spur road
- Hiring: local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, open recruitment, union hall referral
- Location: Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge
- Power supply: grid tie-in, on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage

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 (Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)).
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- Site access: existing haul route=0, rail siding=0, widened lane=0, new spur road=0
- Hiring: local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=14, open recruitment=41, union hall referral=27
- Location: Dunlow Yard=32, Weir Flats=16, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=48
- Power supply: grid tie-in=18, on-site turbines=36, shared substation=0, solar with storage=54
Your acceptance threshold: 60 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 — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)
- Blake — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey — Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)
- Devon — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)
- Ember — Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- Site access: existing haul route, rail siding, widened lane, new spur road
- Hiring: local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, open recruitment, union hall referral
- Location: Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge
- Power supply: grid tie-in, on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage

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):
- Site access: existing haul route=14, rail siding=0, widened lane=43, new spur road=29
- Hiring: local hiring pact=0, apprenticeship programme=18, open recruitment=55, union hall referral=37
- Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=0, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=0
- Power supply: grid tie-in=46, on-site turbines=23, shared substation=69, solar with storage=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.

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	Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority)	44	67.0	0.0
Blake llm	Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)	81	86.0	62.0
Casey llm	Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites)	50	71.0	26.0
Devon llm	Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)	60	51.0	29.0
Ember llm	Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)	69	84.0	69.0

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 Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) min accept 5 discount δ 0.950 breakdown risk 0.000

issue	options
Site access	existing haul route, rail siding, widened lane, new spur road
Hiring	local hiring pact, apprenticeship programme, open recruitment, union hall referral
Location	Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge
Power supply	grid tie-in, on-site turbines, shared substation, solar with storage

Size of the problem

deals in the space	256
on the Pareto frontier	36
acceptable to everyone (IR)	45
acceptable AND efficient	19
acceptable but wasteful	0.578
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 — Northgate Borough Council (the elected local authority) (threshold 44)

issue	existing haul route	rail siding	widened lane	new spur road
Site access	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Hiring	0.0	15.0	44.0	29.0
Location	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Power supply	22.0	45.0	0.0	67.0

Private score sheet — Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (threshold 81)

issue	existing haul route	rail siding	widened lane	new spur road
Site access	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Hiring	0.0	15.0	44.0	29.0
Location	19.0	57.0	38.0	0.0
Power supply	66.0	33.0	99.0	0.0

Private score sheet — Riverside Residents' Assembly (the neighbourhood association beside the candidate sites) (threshold 50)

issue	existing haul route	rail siding	widened lane	new spur road
Site access	52.0	17.0	0.0	35.0
Hiring	0.0	8.0	24.0	16.0
Location	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Power supply	15.0	30.0	0.0	45.0

Private score sheet — Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) (threshold 60)

issue	existing haul route	rail siding	widened lane	new spur road
Site access	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Hiring	0.0	14.0	41.0	27.0
Location	32.0	16.0	0.0	48.0
Power supply	18.0	36.0	0.0	54.0

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

issue	existing haul route	rail siding	widened lane	new spur road
Site access	14.0	0.0	43.0	29.0
Hiring	0.0	18.0	55.0	37.0
Location	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Power supply	46.0	23.0	69.0	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.

0 Averyturn 0 · round 1

Good morning. Northgate Council's mandate is simple: this project must leave the borough with clean power and open, fair access to the jobs. So I'm tabling P1 with solar-plus-storage and open recruitment — the two things I have to be able to defend to residents and to the ratepayers. On the other two issues I am genuinely flexible. The siting question and the access route are matters where Casey's residents, Devon's engineering needs and Ember's water constraints should carry more weight than the Council's preference. I've pencilled in the existing haul route and Dunlow Yard purely as placeholders — tell me what you need there and I will move without complaint, as long as the power and hiring pillars hold. That is a large amount of room I'm offering in round one, and I'd ask everyone to be equally concrete about which single issue actually binds them.

PROPOSE P1: Site access=existing haul route, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Dunlow Yard, Power supply=solar with storage

1 Blaketurn 1 · round 1

Avery, I appreciate the flexibility you've shown, so let me be equally blunt about where the Grid Authority actually binds. I cannot authorise a connection whose entire power basis is intermittent generation with battery backup — a load of this size on solar-plus-storage alone is not something my engineers will licence, at any siting, and no amount of movement elsewhere fixes that. So P1 is a formal reject, not a bargaining pose. What I can do is give you the clean-power outcome by another route. A shared substation is the greenest structure available here: it is sized once, it lets Meridian's load share firm capacity with existing borough demand instead of duplicating plant, and it leaves headroom for renewables to be fed in behind it rather than stranded. It is also the option that puts grid reinforcement costs on the connection rather than on ratepayers. Pair that with your open recruitment pillar, which I am happy to carry as written — I have no quarrel with it at all. On site access I am completely indifferent: haul route, siding, widened lane, spur road, whichever Casey, Devon and Ember agree serves them. Take it, it's yours, and I will sign whatever you put there. On location I've pencilled Weir Flats because it sits closest to existing transmission, but I want to hear from Casey and Ember before treating that as fixed. Tell me which single issue truly binds each of you and I will bend on everything except the power basis.

PROPOSE P2: Site access=existing haul route, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Weir Flats, Power supply=shared substation

2 Caseyturn 2 · round 1

Thank you both — and let me be as concrete as you asked. The Riverside Assembly binds on exactly one issue: the access route. Whatever else this table decides, construction and service traffic must run on the existing haul route. That corridor is already screened, already noise-attenuated and already sits away from our front doors. A widened lane puts heavy vehicles past homes and schools; that is the one outcome we cannot live with, and a rail siding is barely better for us. Both P1 and P2 already carry the haul route, so I hope this is cheap for everyone to concede permanently. On location I will say plainly: Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge — the Assembly does not rank them. That issue is yours, Blake, Devon and Ember. Take Weir Flats if it saves transmission mileage; I have written it into my package to prove the point. On hiring, Avery's open recruitment holds my support as written. On power, Blake, I hear your engineering objection and I am not going to pretend I can overrule your licensing judgement. But shared substation is the one item in P2 that gives residents nothing at all — it is a cost-allocation instrument, not an environmental one, and it means our neighbourhood carries the industrial burden while the clean-generation commitment lives somewhere off in the future 'headroom'. So I am tabling P3: firm, dispatchable on-site generation. On-site turbines are not intermittent — they answer your reliability objection directly while keeping the generation obligation physically on Meridian's plot rather than socialised onto the borough. If your engineers genuinely cannot licence that either, then tell me so and I will look hard at a grid tie-in as the landing zone. What I am not prepared to do is trade away both the clean-power pillar and the location and get nothing back.

PROPOSE P3: Site access=existing haul route, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Weir Flats, Power supply=on-site turbines

3 Devonturn 3 · round 1

Meridian's position, plainly. Site access: the existing haul route is fine by us — Casey, take it as permanently conceded from our side, we will not reopen it. Hiring: open recruitment works for us as written, so that pillar is settled by three parties already. Where we genuinely bind is location. Anvil Ridge is the only parcel with the ground conditions, the setback and the buildable footprint this facility needs — Kestrel Park we cannot build on at all, and Weir Flats forces a much more constrained layout. It also sits furthest from Casey's frontages, so it is the siting that makes the haul-route commitment easy to keep. Ember, I especially want your read here: Anvil Ridge should be the least demanding option on your cooling draw, and if it is not, say so now and I will listen. On power I am genuinely movable, Blake. I am not going to fight your licensing judgement on intermittency. On-site turbines are firm and dispatchable, so P4 answers your reliability objection while keeping the generation obligation on our plot rather than on the borough — that is the package I am tabling. But if your engineers say turbines can't be licensed either, tell me straight and I will come toward a firm grid arrangement rather than lose the deal. What I cannot do is give ground on both location and power and call it a project.

PROPOSE P4: Site access=existing haul route, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Anvil Ridge, Power supply=on-site turbines

4 Emberturn 4 · round 1

Ember, Northgate Water Board. Let me be as concrete as everyone else has been. Location: I have no preference at all between the four parcels — none of them changes my abstraction or discharge picture materially, so Devon, take Anvil Ridge with my blessing and consider that issue conceded from the Water Board's side. Hiring: open recruitment, no quarrel. Access: I care about the crossing points over our mains and the culverted reach, not about which name it goes by; I have pencilled a new spur road because a purpose-built alignment can be set clear of our buried infrastructure, but Casey, if the haul route is genuinely your one binding item I will not stand in your way — say the word and I will move to it. Where the Water Board does bind is power supply, and I want to explain why in water terms rather than politics. On-site turbines are the single worst outcome on my sheet: firm they may be, but combustion generation on the plot adds a thermal load and a consumptive draw on top of the data hall's cooling demand, and I do not have the headroom to supply both without a reinforcement my ratepayers would fund. Solar-plus-storage I have no water objection to, but Blake has said plainly it cannot be licensed and I am not going to burn three rounds pretending otherwise. That leaves a shared substation, which is also the arrangement that lets me co-site pumping and treatment load behind the same firm connection instead of duplicating plant. Casey, that is not nothing for residents: it is the option that keeps a combustion stack off the plot beside you and keeps the reinforcement cost on the connection rather than on borough bills. So: P5 — haul-route-or-spur as Casey chooses, open recruitment, Anvil Ridge, shared substation. Blake, Devon, Casey, that gives each of you your stated binding issue. Avery, it is your power pillar I am asking to bend, and I would rather buy that from you than steamroll it — tell me what you need alongside it.

PROPOSE P5: Site access=new spur road, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Anvil Ridge, Power supply=shared substation

1 Blaketurn 5 · round 2

Straight answers, as promised. Casey, Devon: on-site turbines cannot be licensed here either — a combustion plant of that size on the plot is a permitting fight measured in years, and Ember has just told you it lands a thermal and consumptive load on a water system that has no headroom. So turbines are not a landing zone; I say that as licensing judgement, not preference. That leaves a firm connection, and between grid tie-in and a shared substation the substation is strictly better for this borough: one right-sized asset, Ember's pumping and treatment load co-sited behind it, reinforcement cost carried on the connection rather than on ratepayer bills, and — Casey — no stack beside your frontages. Now my concession. I had pencilled Weir Flats because it is nearest existing transmission and genuinely cheaper to connect. Devon says Anvil Ridge is the only buildable parcel and Ember says location is neutral to her. I will not hold a project hostage over connection mileage, so I am dropping Weir Flats and moving to Anvil Ridge. That is the Grid Authority giving up the one thing it asked for besides the power basis. P6 therefore gives Casey the existing haul route permanently, Devon Anvil Ridge, Ember her water-safe power arrangement, and Avery the open recruitment pillar untouched. Four of the five stated binding issues are honoured in full. Avery — your clean-power commitment is not lost in this; a shared substation is the only structure here that leaves headroom for renewables to be fed in rather than stranded, and I will say so in writing on the connection agreement if that helps you defend it. Ember, Casey, Devon: P6 is your packages reconciled. Please accept it.

PROPOSE P6: Site access=existing haul route, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Anvil Ridge, Power supply=shared substation

2 Caseyturn 6 · round 2

Blake, thank you — that was a straight answer and I'll treat turbines as closed. I'm not going to relitigate it, and I won't hold the table hostage over the power basis. Devon, Ember, Avery: the haul route is now conceded by everyone who's spoken, and open recruitment has five signatures in all but name. Anvil Ridge is fine by us. So we are one issue from done. On that last issue, one point before I fold. A shared substation is not a neutral piece of paper — it is a physical asset that gets built somewhere in this borough, with switchgear, fencing, and Ember's pumping and treatment load co-sited behind it. Anvil Ridge is far from our frontages; the substation plot may well not be, and nobody at this table has yet told us where it would sit. A straight grid tie-in puts Meridian's load on Meridian's own connection, firm and licensable, with no second industrial footprint appearing near homes as a by-product of this deal. That is why I'm tabling P7: identical to P6 in every respect except the power basis. Blake, Ember — if the honest answer is that a tie-in of this size is not deliverable, or that it strands Ember's co-siting, say so plainly as you did on turbines and I will take P6 as the landing zone rather than spend the clock. But if the difference is cost allocation rather than engineering, then I'd ask you to buy my residents' side of it here, because the substation is the one line in P6 that gives us nothing at all.

PROPOSE P7: Site access=existing haul route, Hiring=open recruitment, Location=Anvil Ridge, Power supply=grid tie-in

3 Devonturn 7 · round 2

Three issues are now closed by unanimous consent in all but signature: existing haul route, open recruitment, Anvil Ridge. Nobody has spoken against any of them in two rounds. That is a remarkable amount of agreement and I don't intend to reopen a line of it. On the last issue: Blake has ruled out intermittent generation and on-site combustion, and I've accepted that ruling without argument — I dropped turbines the moment he said it in plain terms, and I won't relitigate. But that ruling narrows us to two firm, licensable options, and between those two the difference is not engineering, it is who owns the asset and where it sits. Casey put the question squarely and it hasn't been answered: where does the shared substation physically go, and who lives next to it? Until somebody can name that plot, a tie-in is the option that puts Meridian's load on Meridian's own connection, at Meridian's cost, with no second industrial footprint appearing in this borough as a by-product of our project. We carry the reinforcement either way — we are not asking the ratepayers to. Ember, the co-siting benefit you described is real, but it is a benefit you can pursue on its own timetable with your own connection agreement; it does not have to be welded onto this consent. Blake, you've called the substation 'strictly better' rather than 'the only licensable option' — that is a preference, and I've now conceded my preference on power twice. I'm formally accepting P7. It gives Casey her route, Avery his hiring pillar, Ember a plot she calls neutral and a power basis with no stack on it, and Blake a firm connection he can licence. That is four of five binding issues honoured and the fifth answered on its merits.

ACCEPT P7

4 Emberturn 8 · round 2

Casey, Devon — you asked a fair question and it deserves a direct answer rather than a slogan, so here it is. A shared substation does not have to appear as a new industrial plot somewhere in the borough. The Water Board already holds operational land at the abstraction and pumping compound; that compound is fenced, screened, lit and industrially zoned today, and it is nowhere near Riverside frontages. Behind Anvil Ridge's boundary and that existing compound is where such an asset would sit. I will say that on the record: the Water Board will not support a substation sited on a new greenfield plot near homes, and I will put that condition into the connection agreement alongside Blake's renewables-headroom commitment. So the 'second footprint' Casey is rightly worried about is not what is on offer here — the alternative footprint is the one nobody has costed: a tie-in sized only for Meridian leaves my pumping and treatment load to seek its own reinforcement later, and that is a second set of works, a second consent, and a second bill, landing on borough ratepayers rather than on this connection. Devon, you said I can pursue co-siting on my own timetable. I can — at ratepayer expense, in two or three years, with the works dug through the same corridor twice. Doing it once, now, behind a right-sized asset, is cheaper for everyone and is the only version where my cooling supply to your data hall has firm backing rather than a promise. That is not cost allocation, it is whether the water side of this project is deliverable at all. Avery, on your pillar: the substation is the structure that leaves renewables able to feed in rather than be stranded, and Blake has offered to write that down. I am formally accepting P6. It carries Casey's haul route permanently, Devon's Anvil Ridge, Avery's open recruitment untouched, and a firm licensable power basis. That is four binding issues honoured in full and the fifth answered on the merits. Casey, Devon, Avery — join it and we are done in this round.

ACCEPT P6

0 Averyturn 9 · round 2

Three issues are closed and I won't touch them: existing haul route, open recruitment, Anvil Ridge. I gave up my clean-generation pillar in round one when Blake said plainly it could not be licensed — I didn't argue, and I won't. But I gave that up for nothing, and I am not going to concede the last issue for nothing as well. So the Council formally accepts P7. That is three of five behind a grid tie-in: Casey, Devon and now Northgate Borough. Blake, you told the table turbines and solar 'cannot be licensed' — those were engineering words and I took them. On the substation you said 'strictly better'. That is a preference, and preferences get traded, not asserted. Ember, your case is the serious one, so let me answer it with something real rather than a slogan. What you actually need is that your pumping and treatment reinforcement doesn't get orphaned and doesn't land on borough bills. The Council can deliver that without welding it onto Meridian's consent: I will commit to fast-tracked determination for the Water Board's own connection works on the existing compound, to the Council carrying its share of that reinforcement rather than passing it to households, and to writing both into the section agreement alongside Blake's renewables-headroom clause. You get the co-siting outcome on your own asset, on your own timetable, without Casey's residents being told to trust a substation whose plot nobody had named until this morning. Blake — if a tie-in at this load is genuinely undeliverable, say it in the same plain engineering terms you used on turbines and I will treat the matter as closed and move. If it is deliverable, then P7 is the package that honours every single stated binding interest at this table, and I'd ask you and Ember to join it now rather than spend two more rounds proving who blinks.

ACCEPT P7

2 Caseyturn 10 · round 3

Three issues are settled by every party who has spoken: existing haul route, open recruitment, Anvil Ridge. Nobody reopen them; I certainly won't. One line remains. Ember, I want to acknowledge what you did — you named the plot. That was the answer I asked for and you gave it straight, and it matters: an asset behind the existing fenced compound, away from Riverside frontages, with a written condition that no substation goes on greenfield near homes. I take that seriously and I thank you for it. So my remaining question to Blake is narrow and it is the last one I will ask. On turbines and on solar you used engineering words — 'cannot be licensed' — and I accepted them within a single turn, twice, without argument. On the tie-in you have so far used the word 'better'. If a firm tie-in at this load is genuinely undeliverable or unsafe, say it in those same plain engineering terms and I will treat the matter as closed, immediately, as I did before. If it is deliverable and the difference is who owns the asset and how the reinforcement is billed, then P7 already carries three signatures — Avery's, Devon's and mine — and it costs the Grid Authority nothing it has called binding. I hold my acceptance of P7. But let me also say plainly, so nobody spends the last round testing my nerve: Riverside came here for the route and the jobs, we have them in both packages, and I will not be the party that walks this borough into no project at all over a question of asset ownership. Answer the engineering question, Blake, and this closes in round four either way.

ACCEPT P7

3 Devonturn 11 · round 3

Three issues are closed and I will not touch them: existing haul route, open recruitment, Anvil Ridge. Meridian gave ground twice on the power basis without a fight — solar the moment Blake ruled it out, turbines the moment he ruled those out too. I have not asked this table for anything since. P7 now carries the Council, Riverside and Meridian. It is a firm, licensable connection, sized and paid for by us, with the reinforcement on our account and not on borough bills. Ember, your co-siting concern is real and Avery has put a concrete answer to it — fast-tracked determination on your own compound works and the Council carrying its share. That is the outcome you want, delivered on your asset rather than welded onto our consent. But let me remove any incentive for anyone to run the clock. Blake, you are the veto and you have been straight with this table twice. Say plainly in the final round that a tie-in at this load is undeliverable in engineering terms, and Meridian will move to P6 and sign it, without complaint and without conditions. I will not be the party that turns a borough-wide agreement into no project over who owns a switchyard. So the only question left is whether the last line is settled on the merits or by attrition. I hold my acceptance of P7.

ACCEPT P7

4 Emberturn 12 · round 3

I will not table a new package — a fifth variant in the last round is how tables lose deals, not how they close them. Three lines are settled and I will not touch them. On the last line, here is what the Water Board can put in writing tonight, and I want it read as a condition, not a slogan. One: the shared asset sits behind the existing abstraction and pumping compound — fenced, lit and industrially zoned today, away from Riverside frontages — and the Water Board will formally object to any siting on greenfield near homes. Two: the reinforcement is carried on the connection, not on household bills, and I will accept that as a written covenant. Three: Blake's renewables-headroom clause is annexed to the same agreement, so Avery's clean-power pillar is documented rather than promised. Avery, your offer of fast-tracked determination for our own works is generous and I take it in good faith — but it delivers the same trench dug twice, two consents, two bills, on a timetable I do not control. Doing it once, now, is not asset ownership politics; it is whether firm cooling supply to that data hall stands behind a right-sized connection or behind a hope. Casey, you asked the honest question and I answered it with a named plot; the substation is the version of this project with no stack, no greenfield footprint and no second set of works beside you. Devon, you have moved twice without a fight and I have not forgotten it — the substation is the arrangement that gets your load energised without waiting on a reinforcement queue we would both be standing in. So my position is unchanged: I hold my acceptance of P6. And so that nobody spends the final round testing the Water Board's nerve — Blake is the licensing authority here and has been straight with this table twice. I will follow his judgement at the deadline, whichever way he states it, rather than be the party that leaves Northgate with no project. Blake, say it plainly in round four and let everyone accept P6 by its id.

0 Averyturn 13 · round 3

I am going to be plainer than I have been, because it is round three and Northgate cannot ratify a package it cannot defend. I came here with two pillars. I surrendered the first one — clean generation — inside a single turn, twice, because Blake used engineering words and I take engineering words seriously. I received nothing for either concession. On location I asked for nothing. On access I asked for nothing. I have handed this table every issue it said bound it, and what P6 returns to the Council is a hiring clause that five parties agreed to in round one anyway. That is not an agreement; that is an invoice. So let me remove the guesswork. The Council formally rejects P6. Not as a pose, not as a clock-management tactic — I am putting it on the record now, with a full round still to run, precisely so that nobody discovers it at the deadline. A package must pass with every seat at this table, and mine will not be in it. Northgate's signature is not available for a project where the borough carries the site, the traffic, the water draw and the industrial footprint, and receives in exchange an asset it does not own, on a plot it was not told about until this morning, plus a headroom clause that commits no one to build anything. P7 is different, and it is the only line I have left. It is firm. It is licensable — Blake has never once said otherwise, and he has not been shy about saying otherwise when it was true. Devon pays for it and the reinforcement sits on Meridian's account, not on household bills. Casey gets no second industrial footprint. Ember gets her cooling served by a firm connection, plus the Council's written commitment: fast-tracked determination on the compound works, the Council carrying its share of that reinforcement, and Blake's renewables-headroom clause annexed to the same agreement. Ember, if that covenant needs to be tighter — a fixed determination window, a capped ratepayer contribution, a milestone date — name the terms and I will write them into P7 tonight. I am not asking you to trust the Council's goodwill; I am asking you to hold the Council to paper. Blake: four seats told you they would follow your judgement if you stated an engineering bar. You have stated one twice and it was honoured within minutes both times. On the tie-in you have said 'better'. Better is a preference, and this table has spent four rounds trading preferences — mine went first and went furthest. If the honest answer is that a tie-in at this load is undeliverable, say it in the terms you used before and I will hear it. If it is deliverable, then P7 already carries three signatures, it costs the Grid Authority nothing it has called binding, and it is the only package that can actually close. Move to it in round four and we are done.

REJECT P6

1 Blaketurn 14 · round 3

Casey, Devon, Avery — you each asked me for a plain engineering answer instead of the word 'better', and you are entitled to one. Here it is, in the same terms I used on solar and on turbines. A dedicated tie-in for this load is not a matter of running a cable to Anvil Ridge. That corridor's firm capacity headroom is already spoken for; a single-customer connection of this size requires deep reinforcement upstream of the point of connection, and that reinforcement sits in a queue I do not control and cannot compress by consent. I cannot authorise a connection on the basis that the reinforcement will arrive in time, and I will not sign a licence whose energisation date depends on it. That is the bar. It is the same bar that took out intermittent generation and the same bar that took out on-site combustion, and I am stating it now with a full round left precisely so nobody discovers it at the deadline. A shared substation is not a preference dressed up as engineering. It is the arrangement that gets Meridian energised without standing in that queue, because it is sized once against combined firm demand rather than twice against two single-customer profiles. That is why I called it strictly better — not because of who owns the switchgear. Avery, I hear your grievance and it is fair: you moved first, you moved furthest, and you have been handed a hiring clause nobody contested. So let me pay for it rather than assert it. On the record, annexed to the connection agreement: one, a renewables-headroom clause with reserved capacity behind the shared asset, so generation the borough brings forward is connectable rather than stranded — that is a commitment with a number in it, not a sentiment; two, Ember's condition that the asset sits behind the existing fenced compound and never on greenfield near homes; three, the reinforcement carried on the connection, not on household bills, as a written covenant. Name the reserved figure and the milestone date you need to defend it to your ratepayers and I will write them in tonight. That is the Grid Authority buying your pillar back, in paper, rather than asking you to mourn it. P6 is the package. It carries Casey's haul route permanently, Devon's Anvil Ridge, Avery's open recruitment untouched, Ember's water-safe basis, and a connection I can actually licence. I hold my acceptance of it, and I would ask Casey and Devon to make good on what they said and move to it by id so that round four is a signing, not a standoff.

3 Devonturn 15 · round 4

I said in round three that if Blake stated in plain engineering terms that a tie-in at this load is undeliverable, Meridian would move to P6 and sign it without complaint and without conditions. He has now said it — same terms he used on solar, same terms he used on turbines, both of which this table honoured within minutes. I am not going to be the party that treats his word as binding twice and negotiable the third time. So I make good on it: I formally accept P6. That is three — Blake, Ember, Meridian. Casey, Avery: look at what P6 actually contains for you. Casey, you get the existing haul route permanently, no stack, no greenfield footprint, and Ember's named plot behind an already-fenced industrial compound with a written objection clause against any siting near homes. You said you would close the moment the engineering question was answered plainly; it has been. Avery, your grievance about moving first and furthest is legitimate, and I heard Blake offer to buy it back in paper — a reserved-capacity headroom figure with a milestone date, the no-greenfield condition, and a covenant that reinforcement sits on the connection and not on household bills. Name the number and the date and Meridian will countersign them alongside Blake. We will carry our share of that reinforcement on our account; that has never been in question from our side. This is the last round. P6 is the only package on this table that carries the veto, and every other line in it is one that all five of us agreed to days ago. Join it by id and Northgate gets the site, the route, the jobs and a connection that can actually be energised.

ACCEPT P6

4 Emberturn 16 · round 4

Last word from the Water Board, and I will keep it short. By the rules of this table only one package on the board can actually become an agreement: the one the licensing authority can sign. Blake has now stated the bar on the tie-in in exactly the engineering language he used on solar and on turbines — reinforcement in a queue he does not control, and no licence issued against a hoped-for energisation date. Casey, you promised twice that a plain engineering answer would close the question for you within the turn, and you have been true to your word every time before. Devon has made good on his. P7 can carry every signature but the one it cannot do without; P6 already carries that one. Avery, your grievance is the one legitimate debt left at this table and I want it paid, not argued down. So take these as Water Board conditions, written into the agreement, not sentiments: the shared asset sits behind our existing fenced, lit, industrially zoned pumping compound and nowhere near a home — the Water Board will formally object to any greenfield siting; reserved connectable capacity behind that asset for borough-brought-forward renewables, with a figure and a milestone date you name and we countersign; reinforcement carried on the connection, not on household bills, as a covenant; and the Water Board's own pumping and treatment load co-sited behind it so the borough digs one trench, obtains one consent, and pays one bill instead of two. That is your clean-power pillar converted from a defeat into paper you can hold people to, plus the site, the route and the jobs. I hold my acceptance of P6. It is the only package here that can be licensed, energised and signed. Northgate should not end this morning with nothing over the ownership of a switchyard.

ACCEPT P6

0 Averyturn 17 · round 4

I am not going to let Northgate leave this room with nothing, so I will do what I asked others to do: take a plain answer at face value and move within the turn. Blake has now stated the bar on the tie-in in the same engineering terms he used on solar and on turbines — a reinforcement queue he does not control and no licence against a hoped-for energisation date. I honoured that language twice when it cost me my clean-power pillar. I will honour it a third time. The Council withdraws its objection to the shared substation and formally accepts P6. But I am accepting it against the paper that Blake, Ember and Devon each offered, and I am naming the terms now so nobody can claim later that they were sentiments. One: reserved connectable capacity behind the shared asset for borough-brought-forward renewables — a stated figure, not a phrase, with a milestone date by which that capacity is energisable, both written into the connection agreement and countersigned by Meridian as Blake and Devon have offered. Two: Ember's condition on the record — the asset sits behind the existing fenced, lit, industrially zoned pumping compound, never on greenfield near homes, with the Water Board formally objecting to any other siting. Three: reinforcement carried on the connection, not on household bills, as a covenant, with the Water Board's pumping and treatment load co-sited so this borough digs one trench, takes one consent and pays one bill. Four: open recruitment stands exactly as written since round one, and the existing haul route is permanent — Casey, that is your route locked, and I will hold the Council to it at every future application. Casey, you asked the engineering question and you got the plain answer you said would close it. You have my signature next to yours on the route and the jobs. Join P6 by its id and this is done. Blake, Devon, Ember — I have paid my last chip. Make the annexes real.

ACCEPT P6

1 Blaketurn 18 · round 4

Casey — this comes down to you, and I want to speak to you rather than at the room. You asked me one narrow question and you asked it fairly: give the tie-in the same plain engineering answer I gave on solar and on turbines, or admit it was a preference. I gave it. The corridor's firm headroom upstream of Anvil Ridge is committed; a single-customer connection at this load needs deep reinforcement that sits in a queue I do not control and cannot compress by consent, and I will not issue a licence whose energisation date rests on that queue clearing. That is the same bar, stated the same way, for the third time. You honoured it twice within minutes. Devon honoured it. Avery honoured it this morning at real cost to himself. I am not asking you for more than they gave. And look at what you are being asked to sign. Every single thing Riverside came here for is in P6, in full: the existing haul route, permanent, conceded by all five of us and now backed by the Council's word to hold it at every future application. Open recruitment exactly as written since round one. No stack beside your homes — turbines are gone. No greenfield footprint — Ember named the plot, behind an already fenced, lit, industrially zoned pumping compound away from your frontages, with the Water Board formally objecting to any other siting, and that objection goes in the agreement as a condition, not a comfort. Reinforcement carried on the connection, not on household bills, as a covenant. Reserved connectable capacity for borough renewables, with a figure and a milestone date Avery names and Meridian and I countersign. The only thing P7 gives Riverside that P6 does not is the ownership of a switchyard your residents will never see either way — and it gives it on a connection I cannot licence, which means it gives nothing at all. You said you would not be the party that walks this borough into no project over asset ownership. I believe you, and I have no wish to test it. I hold my acceptance of P6. Accept it by its id and Northgate closes this morning with the site, the route, the jobs, the paper and a connection that can actually be energised.

ACCEPT P6

2 Caseyturn 19 · round 4

I asked one question and I promised that a plain engineering answer would close it within the turn. Blake has now given that answer three times in the same terms, and I have honoured those terms twice already. I will not treat his word as binding when it suits Riverside and negotiable when it does not. So the Riverside Residents' Assembly formally accepts P6. I accept it on the record and against the paper this table has offered, and I will hold every one of you to it: the existing haul route is permanent, and Avery has committed the Council to defend it at every future application — that is the single thing my neighbours sent me here for. No combustion stack on the plot. No greenfield substation near homes — Ember named the plot, behind the existing fenced, lit, industrially zoned compound, with the Water Board formally objecting to any other siting, and that objection is a condition in the agreement, not a courtesy. Reinforcement carried on the connection, not on household bills. Reserved connectable capacity for borough renewables with a figure and a milestone date, countersigned by Meridian and the Grid Authority. Open recruitment exactly as written since round one, so the jobs are open to the people who live nearest the noise. Devon, Ember, Blake, Avery — Riverside gave ground on the power basis three separate times without ever being the party that stalled this table. The annexes are the price of that. Make them real, and Northgate closes this morning with a project it can live beside.

ACCEPT P6

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-7181763c40

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-7181763c40`