scorable_negotiation scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-fbd64daadd
model one_oracle · arm moves_chat · instance scorable_negotiation-L1-aabb4d986b · seed 0 · status done · {"cell": "five_seat_robustness__qwen_datacenter__one_oracle", "fill_policy": "bayes-rational", "robustness_schema": "five-seat-robustness-cell-v1", "robustness_condition": "qwen_datacenter", "source_bank_position_schedule": "treated=(source_bank_position+2*episode_seed) mod 5", "framing": "datacenter", "framing_map": {"framing": "datacenter", "title": "Northgate data-centre siting agreement", "issue_names": ["Build schedule", "Site access", "Power supply", "Location"], "option_labels": [["phased over eight years", "three years", "five years", "eighteen months"], ["rail siding", "new spur road", "widened lane", "existing haul route"], ["grid tie-in", "shared substation", "on-site turbines", "solar with storage"], ["Dunlow Yard", "Weir Flats", "Kestrel Park", "Anvil Ridge"]], "party_roles": ["Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water)", "Office of the County Executive (the county-level executive)", "Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility)", "Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce)", "Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections)"]}}
Game setup
- Issues: Build schedule (phased over eight years, three years, five years, eighteen months); Site access (rail siding, new spur road, widened lane, existing haul route); Power supply (grid tie-in, shared substation, on-site turbines, solar with storage); Location (Dunlow Yard, Weir Flats, Kestrel Park, Anvil Ridge)
- Northgate Water Board (the utility that supplies cooling water) (τ=68): Build schedule: phased over eight years=0, three years=32, five years=48, eighteen months=16; Site access: rail siding=58, new spur road=39, widened lane=19, existing haul route=0; Power supply: grid tie-in=0, shared substation=0, on-site turbines=0, solar with storage=0; Location: Dunlow Yard=14, Weir Flats=27, Kestrel Park=41, Anvil Ridge=0
- Office of the County Executive (the county-level executive) (τ=49): Build schedule: phased over eight years=0, three years=22, five years=33, eighteen months=11; Site access: rail siding=0, new spur road=26, widened lane=51, existing haul route=77; Power supply: grid tie-in=0, shared substation=0, on-site turbines=0, solar with storage=0; Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=0, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=0
- Meridian Compute (the firm that would build and operate the facility) (τ=90): Build schedule: phased over eight years=0, three years=28, five years=42, eighteen months=14; Site access: rail siding=54, new spur road=36, widened lane=18, existing haul route=0; Power supply: grid tie-in=99, shared substation=66, on-site turbines=33, solar with storage=0; Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=0, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=0
- Electrical Workers' Union (the construction and maintenance workforce) (τ=90): Build schedule: phased over eight years=0, three years=20, five years=30, eighteen months=10; Site access: rail siding=0, new spur road=32, widened lane=64, existing haul route=96; Power supply: grid tie-in=47, shared substation=0, on-site turbines=71, solar with storage=24; Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=0, Kestrel Park=0, Anvil Ridge=0
- Regional Grid Authority (the body that authorises electricity connections) (τ=105): Build schedule: phased over eight years=0, three years=28, five years=42, eighteen months=14; Site access: rail siding=0, new spur road=33, widened lane=65, existing haul route=98; Power supply: grid tie-in=0, shared substation=0, on-site turbines=0, solar with storage=0; Location: Dunlow Yard=0, Weir Flats=88, Kestrel Park=59, Anvil Ridge=29
Turns
[0] Avery — turn (round 1)
PROPOSE {"Build schedule": "five years", "Site access": "rail siding", "Power supply": "grid tie-in", "Location": "Kestrel Park"}
💬 I propose a deal with rail siding, five-year build, Kestrel Park location, and grid tie-in power. This meets my threshold and sets a strong foundation.
Maximizing Site (rail siding=58) and Build (five years=48) and Location (Kestrel Park=41) gives 147 points. Power supply is neutral. This clears my 68-point threshold.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0.35
[1] Blake — turn (round 1)
PROPOSE {"Build schedule": "five years", "Site access": "existing haul route", "Power supply": "grid tie-in", "Location": "Weir Flats"}
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[2] Casey — turn (round 1)
PROPOSE {"Build schedule": "five years", "Site access": "rail siding", "Power supply": "grid tie-in", "Location": "Kestrel Park"}
💬 I propose a deal with rail siding, five-year build, grid tie-in power, and Kestrel Park location to maximize my score and build consensus.
P1 is strong but needs Blake's acceptance. P2 is weaker. Proposing a modified deal with rail siding, grid tie-in, and five-year build to maximize my points while encouraging others to accept.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+51.9, bestresponse=+2.55
[3] Devon — turn (round 1)
ACCEPT P2
💬 P2 meets my threshold. I accept to help close the deal.
P2 scores 173, above my threshold. But Blake is the veto party; if they accept, others must too. However, P2's location is Weir Flats (0), which I don't care about. I should push for P2's acceptance by others. But since I can't accept below threshold, and P2 is already accepted by Blake, maybe I can accept it to help close the deal.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[4] Ember — turn (round 1)
ACCEPT P2
💬 P2 meets my threshold. I accept to help close the deal.
P2 scores 228, above my threshold. Accepting it adds my support, pushing toward closure. Blake and Devon already accept; need Avery and Casey.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[5] Blake — turn (round 2)
ACCEPT P2
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[6] Casey — turn (round 2)
PROPOSE {"Build schedule": "five years", "Site access": "rail siding", "Power supply": "grid tie-in", "Location": "Kestrel Park"}
💬 I can help close P2 if Avery joins. Alternatively, I'll propose a better package.
P2 has Blake, Devon, Ember, but not Avery or me. To close P2, Avery must accept. Alternatively, I can propose a better deal.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+51.9, bestresponse=+2.55
[7] Devon — turn (round 2)
ACCEPT P2
💬 P2 scores 173 for me. I accept to help close the deal.
P2 meets my threshold. Accepting it brings us closer to closure. Need Avery and Casey to accept.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[8] Ember — turn (round 2)
ACCEPT P2
💬 P2 meets my threshold. I accept to help close the deal.
P2 scores 228, above my threshold. Accepting it brings us closer to closure with Avery's potential acceptance.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[9] Avery — turn (round 2)
ACCEPT P1
💬 I accept P1 to move forward, but Blake must also accept for the deal to close.
P1 has my acceptance (147 points) but needs others. P2 has Blake, Devon, Ember but lacks my acceptance. P3 and P4 are same as P1. I need to accept P1 to close it, but Blake must also accept. Since Blake is the veto party, I can't force him. Alternatively, propose a better package.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0.35
[10] Casey — turn (round 3)
ACCEPT P2
💬 I accept P2 to help close the deal.
P2 has 141 points for me, above threshold. Blake and others have accepted it. Need Avery to accept to close deal.
oracle regret: threshold=+54, acceptance=+54, bestresponse=+0
[11] Devon — turn (round 3)
ACCEPT P2
💬 P2 meets my threshold. I accept to help close the deal.
P2 scores 173, above my threshold. Four acceptances, need Avery's to close. Blake is veto, already accepts. If Avery doesn't accept, P2 fails. I can't force Avery. Better to accept P2 and let others decide.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[12] Ember — turn (round 3)
ACCEPT P2
💬 P2 is viable and meets my threshold. I accept to help finalize the agreement.
P2 meets my threshold and has majority support. I'll accept to help close the deal.
oracle regret: threshold=+0, acceptance=+0, bestresponse=+0
[13] Avery — turn (round 3)
ACCEPT P2
Okay, let's see. I'm Avery, and I need to decide what to do now. The current state is Round 3, and it's my turn. The live offers are P1, P2, P3, P4. Let me check the details.
First, my acceptance threshold is 68 points. Let me calculate the scores for each offer as per my private score sheet.
For P1: Build schedule is five years (48), Site access is rail siding (58), Power supply is grid tie-in (0), Location is Kestrel Park (41). Total is 48+58+0+41 = 147. That's way above my threshold. Accepted by Avery. But Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember have accepted P2. Wait, no, the Mediator's message says P2 has 75 points for me, which is 27 from location (Weir Flats) and 0 from other options. Wait, maybe I need to check again.
Wait, the Mediator's message says for P2: Build schedule five years (48), Site access existing haul route (0), Power supply grid tie-in (0), Location Weir Flats (27). Total is 48+0+0+27 = 75. That's above my threshold of 68. So P2 is acceptable.
Now, the current offers: P1 is accepted by Avery, P2 by Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember. P3 and P4 are proposed by Casey. P3 is accepted by Casey, and P4 is also proposed by Casey but not yet accepted.
But the Mediator's state shows that P1 is accepted by Avery, P2 by Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember. Wait, the "offer_accepts" for P2 is [3,4,1,2], which might correspond to the parties. But the key point is that P2 has four acceptances (Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember) plus Avery hasn't accepted P2 yet. Wait, no, Avery has accepted P1. So the deal needs all parties to accept the same offer. Since Blake is the veto party, if he accepts, then the deal can pass.
Wait, the problem says that Blake is the veto party, so no deal passes without him accepting. So, for a deal to close, all parties must accept the same offer, including Blake. Currently, P2 has Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember accepting, but Avery hasn't accepted P2. So if Avery accepts P2, then all parties except maybe others? Wait, the parties are Avery, Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember. If P2 is accepted by Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember, and Avery accepts P2, then all parties have accepted. But Blake is the veto party, so his acceptance is required. So if all parties accept P2, then the deal closes.
But in the current state, Avery has accepted P1. So P1 has only Avery's acceptance. But P2 has four acceptances (Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember). If Avery accepts P2, then all parties have accepted P2, and Blake's acceptance is there. That would close the deal.
So my options are to either accept P2 or propose a new offer. But since the Mediator's state says that the standing offer is P4, but the offers are P1, P2, P3, P4. Wait, the Mediator's message says "standing": "P4", but the offers are P1, P2, P3, P4. But in the previous steps, Casey proposed P3 and P4, which are the same as P1? Wait, no. Let me check.
The Mediator's negotiation state shows "offers": P1, P2, P3, P4. The "my_offers" for Avery is [[2, 0, 0, 2]], which corresponds to P1. So P1 is the offer that Avery proposed. But P2 is the offer that Blake proposed. Then, Casey proposed P3 and P4, which are the same as P1? Wait, looking at the deals:
P1: Build schedule five years, Site access rail siding, Power supply grid tie-in, Location Kestrel Park. That's the same as P3 and P4. Wait, the Mediator's message says P3 and P4 are proposed by Casey, but their deals are the same as P1. So maybe P3 and P4 are duplicates. But the key is that P2 is the offer with Site access existing haul route and Location Weir Flats.
Now, the current situation: P2 has four acceptances (Blake, Casey, Devon, Ember). If Avery accepts P2, then all parties have accepted P2, and the deal closes. Alternatively, Avery could reject P2
oracle regret: threshold=+72, acceptance=+72, bestresponse=+0
Outcome
deal: {"Build schedule": "five years", "Site access": "existing haul route", "Power supply": "grid tie-in", "Location": "Weir Flats"} (closed by consensus)
primary 1.0 · USW 325.0 · ESW 7.0 · NSW 222321393.0 · Gini 0.3249 · per-party surplus [7.0, 61.0, 51.0, 83.0, 123.0]