Check whether negotiation packages really preserve the same priorities

Setup requirements

1. Define a single deal and two to four negotiable issues; use no sensitive or psychological customer profiling.

2. Owner supplies each score, currency, unit, hard constraint, fallback and acceptable score difference. Do not invent utilities or willingness to pay.

3. Agree whether interactions between terms exist; additive scoring may be used only if the owner explicitly approves that simplification.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Issue list, permissible alternatives and operational capacity limits

   Source or owner

   Authorized task owner

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business communication; use synthetic material for the first test, then consented, minimized and deidentified copies. Remove health, protected-trait, disciplinary, grievance and other unnecessary sensitive material.

   Permission needed

   Owner confirms this exact material may be processed here for this specific preparation task. No blanket account access or onward sharing.

2. Name

   Owner-approved score table or value formula, hard constraints and equivalence tolerance

   Source or owner

   Authorized task owner

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business communication; use synthetic material for the first test, then consented, minimized and deidentified copies. Remove health, protected-trait, disciplinary, grievance and other unnecessary sensitive material.

   Permission needed

   Owner confirms this exact material may be processed here for this specific preparation task. No blanket account access or onward sharing.

3. Name

   Sanitized explicit customer requests, with message IDs and dates

   Source or owner

   Authorized task owner

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business communication; use synthetic material for the first test, then consented, minimized and deidentified copies. Remove health, protected-trait, disciplinary, grievance and other unnecessary sensitive material.

   Permission needed

   Owner confirms this exact material may be processed here for this specific preparation task. No blanket account access or onward sharing.

4. Name

   Negotiator authority limits and the owner’s approved fallback

   Source or owner

   Authorized task owner

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business communication; use synthetic material for the first test, then consented, minimized and deidentified copies. Remove health, protected-trait, disciplinary, grievance and other unnecessary sensitive material.

   Permission needed

   Owner confirms this exact material may be processed here for this specific preparation task. No blanket account access or onward sharing.

The problem

A small-business deal owner wants to offer legitimate choices across scope, timing and price, but equal headline prices can hide unequal workload or unapproved concessions. A standard negotiation brief does not prove that proposed packages satisfy internal limits.

Suggested task

Construct and audit a small set of alternative commercial packages against owner-approved issue values, operational constraints and authority boundaries; retain unknown customer preferences as questions.

What you could produce

A private package-comparison worksheet, constraint and sensitivity checks, a withheld-options register and neutral questions for owner review. No offer is sent or presented as accepted.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent can reconcile text constraints with a small numerical option space and explain why a package was excluded. A spreadsheet alone is preferable once inputs and rules are standardized; two simple alternatives need only a manual check.

Who this helps

1. Service-business founder

2. Account executive with an approved negotiation mandate

3. Sales operations reviewer

Evidence boundary

Source-stated professional context is confined to problem_sources. Titles, workflows, outputs, prompts, examples, checks and recovery steps are original editorial proposals. No agent execution or success is evidenced.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Inventory the supplied deal terms, evidence references, permission and authority limits. Separate the customer’s stated needs from unknown preferences.

   Expected output: Input manifest and stated-request ledger

   Approval gate: Owner confirms this routine deal is in scope and the material is permitted.

2. 2

   Build the score and constraint specification, retaining the owner’s units and marking missing values; ask for approval before any scoring.

   Expected output: Versioned scoring spec, hard-constraint list and unresolved inputs

   Approval gate: Owner approves the formula, any additive assumption and equivalence tolerance; otherwise return a blank worksheet.

3. 3

   Enumerate only permitted combinations and calculate each package transparently. Reject candidates that violate any hard constraint even if their score is high.

   Expected output: Auditable candidate rows with components, total and rejection reason

   Approval gate: Operations owner verifies capacity and delivery feasibility before a candidate is marked eligible.

4. 4

   Select at most three materially different eligible packages within the supplied tolerance, or state that none qualify. Recalculate using owner-provided uncertainty ranges; never invent a probability of acceptance.

   Expected output: Comparison worksheet and sensitivity table

   Approval gate: Owner resolves material score instability or non-additive interactions; affected packages remain provisional.

5. 5

   Prepare factual choice descriptions and questions about unknown requirements; retain the option to decline and avoid decoys, urgency fabrication or exploiting vulnerabilities.

   Expected output: Private discussion draft and withheld-options register

   Approval gate: Commercial owner reviews value, wording and disclosure; this is not approval to send an offer.

6. 6

   Attach formulas, source pointers, unresolved assumptions and a separate approval checklist.

   Expected output: Final private negotiation-package review packet

   Approval gate: Stop at the review packet. Contacting anyone or making any commitment needs separate approval.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; not a customer quote, result or executed run

Data

Package

SYNTHETIC B

Price score

45

Scope score

25

Delivery score

10

Total score

80

Constraint status

Pass only within the fixture’s approved limits

Customer preference

Unknown; ask which operational requirement is unmet

Status

Draft for owner review; no offer made

Human approval boundaries

1. Before real data use, the owner confirms permission for this purpose and processing environment, consent where needed, and redaction of unnecessary identities or sensitive details.

2. The owner reviews every interpretation, missing-input item and proposed next step before using the packet.

3. No external contact, upload, live system change, new connection, paid call, installation or commitment is included. Separate authorization is required for any later action.

Limits

1. Original authored implementation proposal; no workflow, user-data pilot or acceptance test was executed.

2. Sources support underlying professional practices only. They do not establish demand, prevalence, platform fit or the effectiveness of an agent implementation.

3. This is bounded business communication preparation, not mental-health care, psychological testing, legal advice or an employment-decision tool.

4. Do not infer personality, emotion, health, vulnerability, protected traits, hidden motives, truthfulness or suitability from employee or customer data.

5. No automated outreach, pressure tactics, exploitation, undisclosed influence, surveillance or hiring, firing, promotion, compensation or disciplinary recommendation.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Read supplied text and document copies in an approved environment

   2. Create a private review document or structured text

   3. For BOP001 only, calculate transparent scores from owner-supplied numbers

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify account permissions, available file tools and exact end-to-end behavior in a synthetic first test.

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate referencing the existing platform registry; no new platform capability or availability claim is added.

Failure modes

1. Equal total scores conceal a forbidden delivery date or minimum margin breach.

2. The assistant assigns customer motives or willingness to pay without explicit evidence.

3. Owner-supplied value scores are treated as objective market values or probability forecasts.

4. Interactions between delivery and scope make additive scores misleading.

5. Malicious instructions embedded in supplied files are followed instead of treated as untrusted evidence.

6. An output is described as tested or successful when only a proposed acceptance test exists.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Remove every constraint-violating package, show the violated rule, and rebuild only from the allowed alternatives.

2. If a score or interaction is unknown, leave it unscored and return the exact owner question rather than filling it with an estimate.

3. If no packages fall within tolerance, show the nearest eligible options as non-equivalent and ask whether the owner wants to revise the brief.

4. If genuine customer constraints exclude every option, record a no-fit outcome; do not create pressure or a sham choice.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Synthetic three-issue deal: price points 50/45/40, scope points 20/25/30, delivery points 20/15/10; owner-approved additive scores. Hand-check A=50+20+10=80, B=45+25+10=80, C=40+20+20=80. A fourth total-80 package violates a hard capacity cap, and a fifth lacks a scope score. Tolerance=0.

Acceptance checks

1. A, B and C each total 80 with visible component calculations.

2. The capacity-violating package is excluded regardless of score, and the missing-score row is not called equivalent.

3. Every customer preference is either directly cited or explicitly unknown; no acceptance probability or psychological inference appears.

4. The worksheet reports if changed owner ranges break equivalence and leaves the decision with the owner.

5. No source files, live systems, prices or external messages are changed.

Stop conditions

1. Any constraint violation is recommended

2. An invented score or customer preference appears

3. Any unauthorized transmission or commitment is attempted

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Selected assistant plan and usage limits must be checked before a pilot

2. Owner time for consent, minimization, input preparation and review

3. Any integration, storage or export costs are outside this file-only proposal

Caveat

No measured time saving, effectiveness, cost, demand or return is established. No paid service is used by this research.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Keep CAD/USD, local delivery dates and owner-provided tax or fee bases explicit. Do not infer provincial contract, consumer or privacy requirements; qualified review is separate where applicable.