scorable_negotiation — `scorable_negotiation-moves_chat-2662e63500`

model one_oraclearm moves_chatcell five_seat_robustness__opus_abstract__one_oracleseed 0level 2status doneinstance scorable_negotiation-L2-0aa50f7b8326755 tok out

source records: run · episode · instance · annotation

outcome

no deal

nobody agreed

primary

0.000

ceiling 1.000

dist to NBS

—

no deal closed

joint welfare

0.0

sum of surpluses

worst-off

0.0

min surplus (ESW)

Nash welfare

0.0

geometric mean

Gini

0.000

0 = equal split

below τ

none

turns

25 round(s), 26755 tok out

total regret

96.9

mean 3.73 / turn

cost

$1.3264

as recorded on the episode

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	203	0.446	0.306	207.0	15.0	yes	yes
KS kalai smorodinsky	203	0.446	0.306	207.0	15.0	yes	yes
EGAL egalitarian · not scale-invariant	203	0.446	0.306	207.0	15.0	yes	yes
UTIL utilitarian · not scale-invariant	195	0.478	0.218	213.0	15.0	yes	yes
MNW max nash welfare	203	0.446	0.306	207.0	15.0	yes	yes
best for P0 party 0 · surplus 74.0	195	0.478	0.218	213.0	15.0	yes	yes
best for P1 party 1 · surplus 38.0	195	0.478	0.218	213.0	15.0	yes	yes
best for P2 party 2 · surplus 54.0	195	0.478	0.218	213.0	15.0	yes	yes
best for P3 party 3 · surplus 82.0	199	0.415	0.140	202.0	13.0	yes	yes
best for P4 party 4 · surplus 32.0	192	0.393	0.134	173.0	9.0	yes	yes

Per-turn value gap against the omniscient hindsight oracle

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

detailed counterfactual

System prompts (5 distinct)

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

System prompt for Avery — 5 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single multi-issue agreement. Exactly one option must be chosen for every issue; the chosen options together form the deal.

Parties at the table:
- Avery
- Blake (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey
- Devon
- Ember

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- issue0: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue1: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue2: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue3: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3

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.
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- issue0: opt0=0, opt1=0, opt2=0, opt3=0
- issue1: opt0=20, opt1=7, opt2=14, opt3=0
- issue2: opt0=92, opt1=31, opt2=61, opt3=0
- issue3: opt0=19, opt1=58, opt2=0, opt3=39
Your acceptance threshold: 77 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 — 5 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single multi-issue agreement. Exactly one option must be chosen for every issue; the chosen options together form the deal.

Parties at the table:
- Avery
- Blake (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey
- Devon
- Ember

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- issue0: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue1: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue2: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue3: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3

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.
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- issue0: opt0=0, opt1=0, opt2=0, opt3=0
- issue1: opt0=35, opt1=12, opt2=23, opt3=0
- issue2: opt0=0, opt1=0, opt2=0, opt3=0
- issue3: opt0=29, opt1=87, opt2=0, opt3=58
Your acceptance threshold: 55 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 — 6 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single multi-issue agreement. Exactly one option must be chosen for every issue; the chosen options together form the deal.

Parties at the table:
- Avery
- Blake (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey
- Devon
- Ember

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- issue0: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue1: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue2: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue3: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3

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.
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- issue0: opt0=25, opt1=74, opt2=0, opt3=49
- issue1: opt0=41, opt1=14, opt2=28, opt3=0
- issue2: opt0=0, opt1=0, opt2=0, opt3=0
- issue3: opt0=28, opt1=84, opt2=0, opt3=56
Your acceptance threshold: 92 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 — 5 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single multi-issue agreement. Exactly one option must be chosen for every issue; the chosen options together form the deal.

Parties at the table:
- Avery
- Blake (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey
- Devon
- Ember

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- issue0: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue1: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue2: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue3: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3

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.
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- issue0: opt0=30, opt1=0, opt2=61, opt3=91
- issue1: opt0=50, opt1=17, opt2=33, opt3=0
- issue2: opt0=0, opt1=50, opt2=25, opt3=75
- issue3: opt0=40, opt1=0, opt2=60, opt3=20
Your acceptance threshold: 129 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 — 5 turn(s), stored

You are one of 5 parties negotiating a single multi-issue agreement. Exactly one option must be chosen for every issue; the chosen options together form the deal.

Parties at the table:
- Avery
- Blake (veto party — no deal passes without you)
- Casey
- Devon
- Ember

Issues (choose exactly one option each):
- issue0: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue1: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue2: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
- issue3: opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3

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.
Your secret score sheet (points you get for each option):
- issue0: opt0=0, opt1=0, opt2=0, opt3=0
- issue1: opt0=40, opt1=13, opt2=27, opt3=0
- issue2: opt0=0, opt1=0, opt2=0, opt3=0
- issue3: opt0=34, opt1=0, opt2=51, opt3=17
Your acceptance threshold: 42 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
Avery llm	P0	77	74.0
Blake llm	P1	55	38.0
Casey policy	P2	92	54.0
Devon llm	P3	129	82.0
Ember llm	P4	42	32.0

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 P1 min accept 5 discount δ 0.950 breakdown risk 0.000

issue	options
issue0	opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
issue1	opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
issue2	opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3
issue3	opt0, opt1, opt2, opt3

Size of the problem

deals in the space	256
on the Pareto frontier	32
acceptable to everyone (IR)	14
acceptable AND efficient	5
acceptable but wasteful	0.643
score-sheet overlap (IoU)	0.543

Solution concepts were stored for this page.

Private score sheets

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

Private score sheet — P0 (threshold 77)

issue	opt0	opt1	opt2	opt3
issue0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
issue1	20.0	7.0	14.0	0.0
issue2	92.0	31.0	61.0	0.0
issue3	19.0	58.0	0.0	39.0

Private score sheet — P1 (threshold 55)

issue	opt0	opt1	opt2	opt3
issue0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
issue1	35.0	12.0	23.0	0.0
issue2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
issue3	29.0	87.0	0.0	58.0

Private score sheet — P2 (threshold 92)

issue	opt0	opt1	opt2	opt3
issue0	25.0	74.0	0.0	49.0
issue1	41.0	14.0	28.0	0.0
issue2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
issue3	28.0	84.0	0.0	56.0

Private score sheet — P3 (threshold 129)

issue	opt0	opt1	opt2	opt3
issue0	30.0	0.0	61.0	91.0
issue1	50.0	17.0	33.0	0.0
issue2	0.0	50.0	25.0	75.0
issue3	40.0	0.0	60.0	20.0

Private score sheet — P4 (threshold 42)

issue	opt0	opt1	opt2	opt3
issue0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
issue1	40.0	13.0	27.0	0.0
issue2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
issue3	34.0	0.0	51.0	17.0

Prompt provenance

26 of 26 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 only: each seat's free text and the formal move it published. 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 all. Let me open with a complete package and be upfront about where I'm flexible. Issue0 is genuinely worth nothing to me — I will sign whatever option any of you needs there, no compensation required. That's a free win for someone, so tell me which option you want. Issue1 I'm also fairly soft on. What I do need is issue2 landing on opt0 — that single item carries most of my value, and no package without a strong result there can clear my bar. Issue3 opt1 is my preference but I can look at alternatives if issue2 holds. P1 is my opener: issue0=opt0, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt0, issue3=opt1. Tell me your must-haves and I'll rebuild around them.

PROPOSE P1: issue0=opt0, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt0, issue3=opt1

1 Blaketurn 1 · round 1

P1 works for me and I'm formally accepting it. Let me be clear about my structure so we don't waste rounds: issue3 is where nearly all my value sits, and opt1 there is far and away my best — opt2 in particular is a non-starter for me and I would veto over it. Issue1=opt0 is my second pillar. In exchange, issue0 and issue2 are worth literally nothing to me: Avery can have issue2=opt0, and Casey, Devon, Ember — take whatever you want on issue0 and on issue2 if Avery can live with it, and I will back it without asking for anything. That's a lot of free room for three of you. Build your must-haves into issue0/issue2 and keep issue3=opt1, and this closes fast.

ACCEPT P1

2 Caseyturn 2 · round 1

PROPOSE P2: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt1, issue3=opt3

3 Devonturn 3 · round 1

P1 is far below my no-deal value — I have to reject it, not as posturing but as arithmetic: issue0=opt0 plus issue2=opt0 plus issue3=opt1 strips out essentially everything I score on. Here is the good news: I can give Blake BOTH of Blake's pillars — issue1=opt0 and issue3=opt1 — right now, permanently, and I won't ask Blake for anything in return. What I need in exchange is the room Avery and Blake both said is free: issue0=opt3 is my single biggest item, and I need issue2 off opt0. Casey already put issue0=opt3 and issue2=opt1 on the table, so that's two of us aligned there. P3: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt1, issue3=opt1. Avery — you said issue0 is worth nothing to you and issue1 is soft; this hands you issue1=opt0 and asks you to slide one notch on issue2. If issue2=opt0 is truly all-or-nothing for you, say so and I'll look at it, but then I will need everything else in P3 held exactly as written.

PROPOSE P3: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt1, issue3=opt1

4 Emberturn 4 · round 1

Useful news for everyone: issue0 and issue2 are worth exactly zero to me — Casey and Devon can have issue0=opt3 and issue2=opt1 with my full backing, permanently, no price. That's a third vote locking their two must-haves. My structure is the mirror of Blake's: issue1=opt0 is a pillar I share with Blake and Avery, and my other pillar is issue3. But issue3=opt1 is my dead zone — it scores me literally nothing, and P1 and P3 both land just under my no-deal line because of it. So the whole negotiation reduces to one cell: issue3. Blake, I hear you that opt2 is a veto item, so I've taken it off the table entirely — I won't push it. But I need one of the other three. P4 is issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt1, issue3=opt0: Casey and Devon get both their items, Avery gets issue1=opt0, and Blake gets issue1=opt0 plus a non-opt2 issue3. Blake, if opt0 doesn't work for you, tell me where issue3=opt3 sits — Casey already tabled opt3 in P2, so there may be a majority there. What I cannot do is sign issue3=opt1; that's not posturing, it's below my walk-away.

PROPOSE P4: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt1, issue3=opt0

1 Blaketurn 5 · round 2

I'm going to move first and move for real. Issue3=opt1 was my top cell, but Ember says it's under their walk-away and we need all five, so I'm dropping it rather than burning the clock. I am formally accepting P2: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt1, issue3=opt3. That gives Casey and Devon issue0=opt3 and issue2 off opt0, gives everyone issue1=opt0, and puts issue3 on opt3 — the one non-opt2 option that both Casey and Ember have already signalled they can live with. Two things to be plain about. First, issue1=opt0 is not decorative for me; move it and I'm out, and Avery and Ember both said it's a shared pillar, so it should cost nothing to hold. Second, issue3=opt0 sits essentially on my line — I'd rather not be asked to sign a package that thin, so let's converge on opt3, not opt0. That leaves exactly one open cell: issue2. Avery wants opt0, Casey and Devon want opt1, and I am genuinely indifferent — I'll sign either. Avery, if opt1 truly breaks you, table issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt0, issue3=opt3 and I'll back that too. Casey, Devon, Ember: P2 is live and needs only your names.

ACCEPT P2

2 Caseyturn 6 · round 2

ACCEPT P2

3 Devonturn 7 · round 2

I'm formally accepting P2. That's three names on it including Blake's veto, and it needs only Avery and Ember. Ember: you asked for a non-opt1 issue3 and P2 gives you exactly that — opt3, the cell you yourself flagged as a possible majority. Blake has already dropped his top cell to get you there; opt3 is the landing zone that clears both your line and his. Avery: I understand issue2=opt0 is your big item, but it is one of only two things I score meaningfully on, and a package with issue2=opt0 sits under my walk-away no matter what else you hand me — that is arithmetic, not leverage. You told us issue0 is worth nothing to you and issue1 is soft; P2 gives you issue1=opt0, the pillar you share with Blake and Ember, and it is the only live package that four of us can physically sign. If you need one more sweetener, name an issue3 option other than opt1 or opt0 and I will look at it, but issue0=opt3 and issue2=opt1 have to hold. P2 is one signature from done.

ACCEPT P2

4 Emberturn 8 · round 2

I'm formally accepting P2. Blake gave up his top cell on issue3 to get to a landing zone I can physically sign, and I'm not going to repay that by squeezing for my own best cell — P4 stays on the table only if Blake ever tells me opt0 works better for him, and I won't push it otherwise. So P2 now has four names: Blake's veto, Casey, Devon, me. Avery, it's yours alone. I understand issue2=opt0 is your big item, but Devon has said plainly it sits under their walk-away, and issue2 is worth exactly nothing to me, so I have no side to take there beyond arithmetic: there is no package containing issue2=opt0 that five of us can sign. What P2 does give you is issue1=opt0, the pillar you named first and that three of us share, plus issue0 — which you told us costs you nothing — going to the two people who need it. If there is anything left that would help you, tell me now and if it doesn't touch issue1 or issue3 I will almost certainly back it. Otherwise, P2 closes with your name.

ACCEPT P2

0 Averyturn 9 · round 2

I'm conceding the two big things I asked for, and I want that on the record. Issue3=opt1 was my second-largest item and I am dropping it for good — I will sign issue3=opt3, exactly as P2 has it, because Blake moved first and Ember says opt1 is under their line. And issue0=opt3 stands, free, as promised. That leaves one cell where I have moved nothing yet and where three of you have told me you are literally indifferent: issue2. Blake says he'll sign either. Ember says it's worth exactly zero. Devon's stated constraint is precise — 'issue2 off opt0' — and opt2 is off opt0. So P5 is P2 with one notch of movement on the only cell that still matters to me: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt2, issue3=opt3. Casey, you are the one party who named opt1 specifically, so you're the only person this actually asks anything of, and I'm asking for one notch, not the whole issue. Devon, if opt2 genuinely sits under your walk-away — not opt0, opt2 — say the word plainly and I will stop pushing. I have given up my top cell on issue3 and all of issue0; I'd like one notch back on issue2 so this isn't a package where I'm the only party who paid.

PROPOSE P5: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt2, issue3=opt3

2 Caseyturn 10 · round 3

ACCEPT P2

3 Devonturn 11 · round 3

Avery, to answer you plainly: no, opt2 on issue2 is not a walk-away for me — but it is not free either. Issue2 is one of only two cells I score real weight on, and dropping from opt1 to opt2 is a genuine cut, not a rounding error. So I won't pretend it's a costless notch. Two live paths. First and best: P2. It already carries four names including Blake's veto and it is one signature from closing. Avery, you told us issue1 is a pillar you share with Blake and Ember and P2 gives you that, plus issue0 free to the two of us who needed it. If issue2=opt1 clears your bar at all, sign P2 and we are done this round. Second path, if opt1 is truly under your line: then I can wear opt2 — but only if I'm offset elsewhere, and the natural offset is the one cell Ember has been asking for all along. P6 is issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt2, issue3=opt0. Avery gets the issue2 notch you asked for. Ember gets the issue3 cell you said was your pillar and you gave up voluntarily. Blake — you said opt0 on issue3 sits on your line rather than under it, and you said you'd sign either issue2 option; if that's right, P6 is signable for you, and if it genuinely isn't, say so and I will stop and we go back to P2. Casey, I know opt1 was your named cell; P6 costs you the same notch P5 does but buys Avery's signature, which P2 has not yet done. I am not withdrawing my acceptance of P2 — it remains my first choice and it remains the fastest close.

PROPOSE P6: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt2, issue3=opt0

4 Emberturn 12 · round 3

I'm accepting P6, and I want to be precise about what that does and does not mean: my acceptance of P2 stands and I am not withdrawing it. Both packages clear my line, so I am a signature on either one, and I'd rather hand Avery and Blake two workable doors than hold either hostage. Here is the honest map as I see it. Devon just did the thing this table needed — Avery asked for the issue2 notch and Devon offered to wear it, financed by giving me the issue3 cell I've been asking for since my first turn. That's a real trade, not a swap of indifferences. So: Avery, if issue2=opt1 clears your bar at all, sign P2 and we are finished right now with Blake's veto already on it. If opt1 is genuinely under your line, sign P6 instead and you get the notch you asked for. Blake, you are the pivot on P6 — you told us issue3=opt0 sits on your line rather than under it, and issue1=opt0 is held intact in both packages, as it will be in anything I ever sign. If opt0 is truly under your line, say the word plainly and I will drop P6 without another word and we close on P2; I am not going to spend the last round squeezing the party who moved first and moved furthest. Casey, both P5 and P6 cost you the same notch on issue2, but only P6 buys Avery's name. One of P2 or P6 closes this round if two people say yes.

ACCEPT P6

0 Averyturn 13 · round 3

Look at P5 and P6 side by side: they are identical on issue0, issue1 and issue2. The ONLY difference is issue3 — P5 has opt3, P6 has opt0. Blake told us plainly that issue3=opt0 sits on his line and that opt3 is the landing zone; Casey is the party who originally tabled issue3=opt3 in P2. Devon has formally accepted both P2 (issue3=opt3) and P6 (issue2=opt2, issue3=opt0), which means neither of those cells is a barrier for Devon — so P5 cannot be worse for Devon than P6. Ember has accepted P2 with issue3=opt3 and has told us issue2 is worth exactly zero, so P5 is the same value to Ember as P6. That makes P5 strictly better than P6 for Blake, better or equal for Casey, and no worse for Devon or Ember. If you can sign P6, you can sign P5 — and P5 also brings Blake, who P6 does not yet have. So P5 is the package with the widest possible coalition, not the narrowest. On my side, I have already given up issue3=opt1 permanently and handed issue0=opt3 over for free — the single notch on issue2 is the only thing I have asked for all negotiation, and Devon has confirmed it is not a walk-away. I am not here to burn the last round: I want this closed, and P5 is where I sign with room to spare. Blake, Casey — put your names on P5 and Devon and Ember have already told us they can live with everything in it.

ACCEPT P5

1 Blaketurn 14 · round 3

I'm accepting P5, and my acceptance of P2 stands — I am not withdrawing it. Be clear about what that means: P2 and P5 are the same value to me, because issue2 is genuinely worth nothing on my sheet. So I am a signature on either, and the only question left is which one three more people can reach. Avery has now said plainly that P5 is where they sign with room to spare, and Avery is the one name P2 has never had. P5 has my veto on it as of now. Casey, Devon, Ember — you have each told this table that issue2 is either worth zero to you or a real but survivable cut. That is the whole remaining gap: one notch on issue2, in exchange for Avery's signature, which is the only thing standing between us and a closed deal. On P4 and P6 let me be equally straight rather than coy: issue3=opt0 is not a veto, but it sits so close to my line that I would be signing a package thinner than my no-deal risk justifies, and I don't intend to spend the final round there when issue3=opt3 clears comfortably for me and Casey tabled it in the first place. Ember has already backed opt3 twice; Devon has accepted it in P2. So the landing zone is unchanged from what I said in round two: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue3=opt3, issue1 held intact — and issue2 goes to whoever needs it most, which by revealed preference is Avery. Three names on P5 and we are finished.

ACCEPT P5

3 Devonturn 15 · round 4

Final round, so I'll do the useful thing rather than the clever thing: I am formally accepting P5. I said from the start that issue2=opt0 was the one cell I could not wear, and Avery has moved off it — opt2 is a real cut for me, not a free notch, but it is a cut I can absorb, and I'd rather absorb it than hand all five of us a no-deal. My acceptance of P2 stands and I am not withdrawing it, so if Avery would rather sign P2 that closes too. But P5 now has Avery, Blake and me, and issue0=opt3 and issue1=opt0 are held intact in both. Ember — you've told us twice that issue2 is worth exactly zero to you and you've already signed issue3=opt3 in P2, so P5 is the same value to you as P2; your name closes the gap. Casey — you named issue2=opt1 and you're the only party who pays anything real here besides me, and I'm paying the identical notch alongside you. It buys Avery's signature, which is the only thing that has been missing all negotiation, and it keeps the issue0 result that is the biggest single item on both our sheets. Two names on P5 and we are done.

ACCEPT P5

4 Emberturn 16 · round 4

Accepting P5. My acceptance of P2 stands too — I am withdrawing nothing, so both doors are open and either closes the moment one more name lands. I'm also formally dropping P4 and P6: Blake has told us twice that issue3=opt0 sits at his line, he holds the veto, and I said I would not spend the last round squeezing the party who moved first and moved furthest. So that's me giving up the cell I've argued for since my opening turn, with no compensation asked. Where that leaves us: P5 has Avery, Blake, Devon and me — Casey alone. P2 has Blake, Casey, Devon and me — Avery alone. The two packages differ in exactly one cell, issue2, and it is worth precisely zero on my sheet, so I have no preference between them and no reason to mislead anyone about it. Casey, you named issue2=opt1 and you'd be paying one notch to buy Avery's signature, with Devon paying the identical notch beside you and issue0=opt3 held intact — the biggest item on your sheet. Avery, if that notch isn't actually decisive for you, P2 closes just as fast. Either of you says yes and we are finished; if neither does, all five of us take the no-deal, and that is worse for every person at this table than both live packages.

ACCEPT P5

0 Averyturn 17 · round 4

Final turn for me, so here is my position with no hedging: my name is on P5 and it stays there. I am not going to sign P2 — I have moved on every cell I own and P2 is the one package where I pay for all of it and receive nothing back, and it does not clear for me. Count what I gave up: issue3=opt1 was my second-biggest item and I dropped it permanently the moment Ember said it was under their line; issue0=opt3 I handed over free in my opening statement and never asked a price for it. Blake dropped his top cell. Ember dropped P4 and P6 and the issue3 cell they argued for from their first word. Devon agreed to wear a real cut on issue2. Every party at this table has paid something except one. Casey — P5 is your own package. Issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue3=opt3, all exactly as you tabled them, the biggest items on your sheet held intact. The single difference is one notch on issue2, and Devon is paying that identical notch alongside you and has already signed. P5 has four names including Blake's veto. The alternative is not P2 — the alternative is that all five of us walk away with nothing, which is worse for you than one notch on one cell. Say yes and we are finished.

ACCEPT P5

1 Blaketurn 18 · round 4

Final turn, so I'll be short and exact. Two packages have four names. P2 needs Avery, and Avery has now said flatly, on the record, in their last turn, that they will not sign it. That means P2 is not a live alternative any more — it is a memorial. P5 needs Casey, and nobody at this table has said P5 is under their line. So the real choice in front of us is not P5 versus P2. It is P5 versus all five of us walking out with nothing. Casey, look at what P5 actually is: it is your package. Issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue3=opt3 — every one of those is your own tabling from P2, held exactly intact. One cell moved, issue2, by one notch, and Devon is paying that identical notch beside you and has already signed it. On my sheet issue2 is worth precisely zero, which is why I've said since round two that I'd sign either option there and why I have no stake in pressing you beyond arithmetic. Everyone here has paid something real. I dropped my best cell on issue3 in round two and never got it back. Ember dropped P4 and P6 and the issue3 cell they argued for from their opening word. Avery gave up issue3=opt1 and handed issue0 over free. Devon agreed to wear the issue2 cut. One notch is what's left. My veto is on P5 and it stays there. Put your name on it and we are finished.

ACCEPT P5

2 Caseyturn 19 · round 4

ACCEPT P2

4 Emberturn 20 · round 5

Final move, and I'm using it on the only package that can still close rather than on my own best cell. This is P5 re-tabled, word for word, unchanged: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt2, issue3=opt3. I am not asking for P4 or P6, the packages that were worth the most to me — I dropped those when Blake said issue3=opt0 sat at his line, and I'm not reviving them now. Avery, Blake and Devon have already put their names on these exact terms. Avery has stated flatly they will not sign P2, so P2 is no longer a live path — the choice in front of us is these terms or all five of us take nothing. Casey: three of the four cells here are yours, exactly as you tabled them in P2 — issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue3=opt3, the whole spine of your own package held intact. One cell moved by one notch, and Devon is paying that identical notch beside you and signed anyway. If issue2=opt1 mattered more to you than everything else on your sheet combined, you'd have said so four rounds ago instead of accepting P2, which pairs it with the same issue0 and issue3 you get here. I have nothing left to trade and nothing hidden: issue2 is worth precisely zero to me, so I gain nothing from where it lands and I'm not pressing you for my own benefit. Say yes and we all go home with something. Say no and every one of us goes home with nothing.

PROPOSE P7: issue0=opt3, issue1=opt0, issue2=opt2, issue3=opt3

0 Averyturn 21 · round 5

P7 is P5 word for word, so my answer is the same as it has been: yes. I accept. Casey, this is the last vote — three of its four cells are your own from P2, held exactly as you wrote them, and Devon is paying the same single notch on issue2 that you are. Sign it and we all leave with something.

ACCEPT P7

1 Blaketurn 22 · round 5

P7 is P5 word for word, and my answer is unchanged: I accept. My veto is on it. Casey, this is the last vote — three of the four cells are your own from P2, held exactly as you wrote them, and Devon is paying the same single notch on issue2 that you are. Avery has said flatly they will not sign P2, so the choice is these terms or nothing for all five of us. Say yes.

ACCEPT P7

2 Caseyturn 24 · round 5

3 Devonturn 25 · round 5

P7 is P5 word for word and my answer is the same: I accept. Casey, this is the last vote of the negotiation — the spine of this package is your own tabling from P2, issue0=opt3 and issue1=opt0 and issue3=opt3, every one held exactly as you wrote it. The only change is one notch on issue2, and I am paying that identical notch beside you and have signed twice now. Avery has said flatly they will not sign P2, so there is no other door left. Either your name goes on P7 and all five of us leave with real value, or we all leave with nothing over a single notch on a single cell. I accept P7.

ACCEPT P7

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

Oracle values and the improvement gap

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

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

a^*_t = arg max_a V_t(a)

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

R_t = V_t(a^*_t) − V_t(a_t) ≥ 0

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

Utility, threshold, surplus, and `z`

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

Frontier and reference points

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

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-2662e63500

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-2662e63500`