Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-142 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Build fair option packages in a reversible fictional negotiation
This lesson teaches a bounded negotiation method with role cards: identify interests, alternatives and authority; exchange verifiable information; create packages; compare fairness and burden; and allow no agreement. It excludes threats, concealed power and real disputes.
What you will produceTwo role-players produce and compare at least three reversible packages, then reach a voluntary agreement or documented no-agreement outcome.
Use equal-authority fictional rehearsal-room role cards, reversible packages and genuinely available no-agreement alternatives.
Exchange interests and constraints, compare at least three packages, and agree only when both roles prefer the terms to their alternatives.
Report either a voluntary package with review and exit terms or a documented no-agreement; do not generalise to real contracts or power imbalances.
Qualified help is required for
Contracts, employment, tenancy, safeguarding or coercive disputes require the appropriate legal, union, human-resources or qualified mediation route.
A fictional equal-power negotiation does not transfer automatically to contracts, workplace disputes or coercive relationships. No wider negotiation claim follows.
Never do this from the page alone
Use threats, false deadlines, deception or private vulnerability to force agreement.
Treat a signed or spoken agreement as fair when refusal carried a penalty.
Practise on a real dependent, employee, tenant, patient or unsafe relationship.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
a fictional negotiation with role cards and a reversible outcome.
Two private role cards listing interests, constraints and a safe alternative if no agreement is reached.
A package table with columns for each term, joint value, burden, fairness concern and reversibility.
Before you start
Prepare a fictional negotiation over shared practice-room times, with role cards, equal authority and no real consequence
Before the first negotiation attempt, write the exact result you will score: Joint value, error, fairness, informed consent, reversibility and outcome durability under declared alternatives and power.
Confirm both players may stop, reveal a role-card conflict or choose no agreement without penalty.
Remove real money, employment, grades, housing, intimate relationships and legal rights from the exercise.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
List interests, not demands
Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
Why: Interests reveal possible trades that fixed positions hide.
Check: Each demand has at least one named underlying need.
Write the walk-away alternative
Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.
Why: A real alternative makes voluntary refusal possible and limits empty threats.
Check: Both players can state a feasible no-agreement plan.
Check authority and limits
Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.
Why: Negotiation is not free when one participant controls unrelated consequences.
Check: The authority statement is equal, bounded and accepted by both players.
Exchange verifiable facts
Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Why: Accurate information can expose trades without requiring disclosure of vulnerabilities.
Check: The table separates checked facts, preferences and withheld private information.
Create three packages
Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.
Why: Packages make trade-offs visible and reduce positional haggling over one term.
Check: Three complete, reversible packages are written before selection.
Score value and fairness separately
Each player rates benefit, burden and fairness for every package from 0 to 4, then explains one low score.
Why: High joint value does not automatically mean fair distribution or free consent.
Check: The record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number.
Agree or decline with a check
Choose a package only if both prefer it to their alternatives. Restate every term, review point and exit condition; otherwise record no agreement.
Why: A complete, reversible close prevents ambiguity and treats no agreement as valid.
Check: Both players accurately teach back the terms and may decline without pressure.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
Two fictional clubs share a rehearsal room. One values Tuesday access and short setup; the other values Wednesday access and storage space.
Walkthrough
Each role converts its preferred day into scheduling and setup interests and records an available off-site alternative.
They confirm neither role controls funding or membership and disclose checked room-opening times.
They create three packages: split evenings, alternating weeks with shared storage, and fixed days with setup help.
Separate scoring shows the alternating option has high total value but places too much setup burden on one role.
They revise it to include shared setup, restate the four-week review and agree voluntarily; either club may revert to its alternative.
Result
The final package improves both roles’ declared outcomes without hiding burden. The result demonstrates this simulation, not high-stakes negotiation competence.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
List interests, not demands
Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
Repeat a position louder without naming the need behind it.
Interests reveal possible trades that fixed positions hide.
Write the walk-away alternative
Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.
Enter with no workable alternative and pretend walking away is possible.
A real alternative makes voluntary refusal possible and limits empty threats.
Check authority and limits
Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.
Ignore that one role can punish the other outside the stated issues.
Negotiation is not free when one participant controls unrelated consequences.
Exchange verifiable facts
Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Invent facts or demand disclosure of private vulnerabilities.
Accurate information can expose trades without requiring disclosure of vulnerabilities.
Create three packages
Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.
Argue over one term and never compare complete packages.
Packages make trade-offs visible and reduce positional haggling over one term.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Repeat a position louder without naming the need behind it.
Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
Enter with no workable alternative and pretend walking away is possible.
Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.
Ignore that one role can punish the other outside the stated issues.
Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.
Invent facts or demand disclosure of private vulnerabilities.
Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Argue over one term and never compare complete packages.
Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Give two role-players the fictional Tuesday-versus-Wednesday rehearsal-room cards, equal authority, a package table and no power over any real schedule or membership.
Have each role write a genuinely available off-site alternative, then exchange summaries so both can state what happens if this exercise ends without agreement.
Exchange verifiable facts: Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Translate each preferred day into scheduling, setup and storage interests, verify room-opening times, then build split-evening, alternating-week and fixed-day packages without hiding setup burden.
Agree or decline with a check: Choose a package only if both prefer it to their alternatives. Restate every term, review point & exit condition; otherwise record no agreement.
Compare each package against both written alternatives, choose one only if each role prefers it, and finish with a mutual teach-back of terms, four-week review, exit condition or documented no-agreement.
Repeat plan
Run two new equal-authority rehearsal-room cases. Change one scheduling constraint in the first and one storage constraint in the second while keeping the no-agreement alternatives real. Each time, build three packages and compare both players’ scores separately. Progress when each player can teach back the terms and freely choose the package or no agreement without pressure.
Progress when
Two role-players produce & compare at least three reversible packages, then reach a voluntary agreement or documented no-agreement outcome.
Authority statement is equal, bounded & accepted by both players.
Record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number.
Both players accurately teach back terms & may decline without pressure.
Do not progress when
Stay at the current level until Each demand has at least one named underlying need.
Do not make the task harder while this error remains: Repeat a position louder without naming need behind it.
Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Joint value, error, fairness, informed consent, reversibility and outcome durability under declared alternatives and power
How: For Negotiation, measure Joint value, error, fairness, informed consent, reversibility and outcome durability under declared alternatives and power. Keep the negotiation fixture stable. Target: Two role-players produce and compare at least three reversible packages, then reach a voluntary agreement or documented no-agreement outcome. Log negotiation errors, prompts, burden and stops.
Good result: Authority statement is equal, bounded & accepted by both players. Record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number. Both players accurately teach back terms & may decline without pressure.
This does not prove: A fictional equal-power negotiation does not transfer automatically to contracts, workplace disputes or coercive relationships.
Self-check
Starting check — Each demand has at least one named underlying need.
Can you show this before continuing? Both players can state a feasible no-agreement plan.
If you catch this mistake — Repeat a position louder without naming the need behind it. — use this correction: Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
What this result does not prove: A fictional equal-power negotiation does not transfer automatically to contracts, workplace disputes or coercive relationships.
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
Negotiation does not progress until Each demand has at least one named underlying need.
Do not add difficulty while this negotiation error persists: Repeat a position louder without naming need behind it.
Accessibility and adaptations
Keep usual aids for Negotiation; record each support inside the negotiation setup.
Accessible opening check for Negotiation: Each demand has at least one named underlying need.
Allow silent written turns, a support person, extra processing time and role cards in plain language; never equate fast speech or eye contact with bargaining skill.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Comparing structurally related negotiation cases can improve near transfer of a principle, but does not establish durable or high-stakes mastery.
Evidence concerns near structural transfer and does not establish durable mastery, fair outcomes or high-stakes competence.
Package scores and agreement in an equal-authority role-play cannot establish legal fairness, enforceability or safety where dependency or retaliation exists.
A fictional equal-power negotiation does not transfer automatically to contracts, workplace disputes or coercive relationships.
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
List interests, not demands
Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
Why this step exists
Interests reveal possible trades that fixed positions hide.
Success check
Each demand has at least one named underlying need.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Repeat a position louder without naming the need behind it.
Correction: Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
02
Write the walk-away alternative
Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.
Why this step exists
A real alternative makes voluntary refusal possible and limits empty threats.
Success check
Both players can state a feasible no-agreement plan.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Enter with no workable alternative and pretend walking away is possible.
Correction: Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
03
Check authority and limits
Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.
Why this step exists
Negotiation is not free when one participant controls unrelated consequences.
Success check
The authority statement is equal, bounded and accepted by both players.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Ignore that one role can punish the other outside the stated issues.
Correction: Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
04
Exchange verifiable facts
Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Why this step exists
Accurate information can expose trades without requiring disclosure of vulnerabilities.
Success check
The table separates checked facts, preferences and withheld private information.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Invent facts or demand disclosure of private vulnerabilities.
Correction: Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
05
Create three packages
Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.
Why this step exists
Packages make trade-offs visible and reduce positional haggling over one term.
Success check
Three complete, reversible packages are written before selection.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Argue over one term and never compare complete packages.
Correction: Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
06
Score value and fairness separately
Each player rates benefit, burden and fairness for every package from 0 to 4, then explains one low score.
Why this step exists
High joint value does not automatically mean fair distribution or free consent.
Success check
The record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each player rates benefit, burden and fairness for every package from 0 to 4, then explains one low score.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Each player rates benefit, burden and fairness for every package from 0 to 4, then explains one low score.” does not yet meet this declared check: The record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number.
Correction: Return to the start of “Score value and fairness separately”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number.”
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
07
Agree or decline with a check
Choose a package only if both prefer it to their alternatives. Restate every term, review point and exit condition; otherwise record no agreement.
Why this step exists
A complete, reversible close prevents ambiguity and treats no agreement as valid.
Success check
Both players accurately teach back the terms and may decline without pressure.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Choose a package only if both prefer it to their alternatives. Restate every term, review point and exit condition; otherwise record no agreement.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Choose a package only if both prefer it to their alternatives. Restate every term, review point and exit condition; otherwise record no agreement.” does not yet meet this declared check: Both players accurately teach back the terms and may decline without pressure.
Correction: Return to the start of “Agree or decline with a check”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Both players accurately teach back the terms and may decline without pressure.”
Stop / get help: Stop immediately if a player introduces a real grievance, threat, confidential fact or off-role consequence.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
List interests, not demands — Interests reveal possible trades that fixed positions hide.
Correct / safer
Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.
Wrong / riskier
Repeat a position louder without naming the need behind it.
Write the walk-away alternative — A real alternative makes voluntary refusal possible and limits empty threats.
Correct / safer
Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.
Wrong / riskier
Enter with no workable alternative and pretend walking away is possible.
Check authority and limits — Negotiation is not free when one participant controls unrelated consequences.
Correct / safer
Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.
Wrong / riskier
Ignore that one role can punish the other outside the stated issues.
Exchange verifiable facts — Accurate information can expose trades without requiring disclosure of vulnerabilities.
Correct / safer
Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.
Wrong / riskier
Invent facts or demand disclosure of private vulnerabilities.
Create three packages — Packages make trade-offs visible and reduce positional haggling over one term.
Correct / safer
Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.
Wrong / riskier
Argue over one term and never compare complete packages.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.