# PWR-142 — Negotiation: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 37 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Common household or practice equipment — 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. Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G2; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context 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. Target outcome: Two role-players produce and compare at least three reversible packages, then reach a voluntary agreement or documented no-agreement outcome. ### Authority and setup conditions - 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. ### Required or supplied materials - 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. ## 1. 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. Success check: Each demand has at least one named underlying need. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Each player writes why each issue matters and ranks the interests privately. Convert “I must get Tuesday” into the need behind it.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Each demand has at least one named underlying need.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. 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. Success check: Both players can state a feasible no-agreement plan. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Each player writes what they will do if no agreement occurs and checks that it is genuinely available.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Both players can state a feasible no-agreement plan.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. 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. Success check: The authority statement is equal, bounded and accepted by both players. Accessible alternative: Complete “Say which terms each role may decide and which are outside the simulation. Stop if one role can punish the other.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The authority statement is equal, bounded and accepted by both players.” Keep usual aids for Negotiation; record each support inside the negotiation setup. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. 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. Success check: The table separates checked facts, preferences and withheld private information. Accessible alternative: Complete “Take turns sharing one constraint or preference. Label whether it is checkable, private or uncertain; ask one clarifying question before proposing.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The table separates checked facts, preferences and withheld private information.” Accessible opening check for Negotiation: Each demand has at least one named underlying need. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. 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. Success check: Three complete, reversible packages are written before selection. Accessible alternative: A supported, seated, reduced-range or slower version of “Build three multi-term offers by changing at least two issues together. Include one option that favours each side and one balanced option.” is equivalent only when it keeps the same trained or measured target, declared configuration and success check: “Three complete, reversible packages are written before selection.” If any of those change, record it as a related alternative rather than an equivalent repetition. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. 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. Success check: The record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Each player rates benefit, burden and fairness for every package from 0 to 4, then explains one low score.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The record preserves separate scores for each player, not one combined satisfaction number.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. 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. Success check: Both players accurately teach back the terms and may decline without pressure. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Choose a package only if both prefer it to their alternatives. Restate every term, review point and exit condition; otherwise record no agreement.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Both players accurately teach back the terms and may decline without pressure.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.