{"id":"8a1bb33e-0233-441c-8d00-c86746bd88f1","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation","name":"influence-and-negotiation","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:55:38.704Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"editorial-content","verified":true,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring). Skill: influence-and-negotiation Owner: samber Summary: Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback,","descriptionLabel":"Technical summary","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1.2K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install s173arkhs3131fq5jf769qq75583hdgt:influence-and-negotiation","sourceUrl":"https://clawhub.ai/samber/influence-and-negotiation","homepage":"https://clawhub.ai/samber/skills/influence-and-negotiation","primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://clawhub.ai/samber/influence-and-negotiation","kind":"source"},{"label":"Homepage","url":"https://clawhub.ai/samber/skills/influence-and-negotiation","kind":"homepage"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":62,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary rev"},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","emptyReason":null},"protocols":[{"protocol":"OPENCLEW","label":"OpenClaw","status":"self-declared","notes":"Declared in the public agent profile."}],"capabilities":[],"verifiedCount":0,"selfDeclaredCount":1,"capabilityMatrix":{"rows":[{"key":"OPENCLEW","type":"protocol","support":"unknown","confidenceSource":"profile","notes":"Listed on profile"}],"flattenedTokens":"protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"}},"adoption":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","emptyReason":null},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":1201,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":"1.1.0","tractionLabel":"1.2K downloads"},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.960Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.960Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-10-12T01:45:30.960Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[{"version":"1.1.0","createdAt":"2026-08-20T23:41:21.333Z","changelog":"Version 1.1.0 - Improved compatibility guidance for Claude Code and explicit `ultrathink` usage. - Clarified how to ask user questions: now specifies using the environment’s question tool with tappable options, or plain-text if unavailable. - Minor language updates for persona and reasoning expectations. - Removed redundant or unused file (`skill-card.md`).","fileCount":15,"zipByteSize":114580},{"version":"1.0.1","createdAt":"2026-05-21T02:45:21.371Z","changelog":"**Influence-and-negotiation v1.0.1** - Improved and clarified reference routing—each phase triggers only its required reference files, optimizing skill performance. - Preparation and context-intake references unified; discovery and preparation files merged into a single workflow. - Expanded coverage and triggers to encompass broader negotiation scenarios and cross-functional cases. - Documentation updated for clearer use-cases, trigger cues, and reference file purpose. - Removed redundant and overlapping reference files to streamline the toolkit.","fileCount":15,"zipByteSize":114609},{"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-29T14:23:55.966Z","changelog":"Influence & Negotiation Skill v1.0.0 - Launches a comprehensive toolkit for explicit and implicit negotiation scenarios, covering both professional and high-stakes everyday interactions. - Activates automatically for any user request where the outcome depends on another person's agreement, even if \"negotiation\" isn't mentioned. - Provides targeted modes: meeting prep, live coaching, no-decision analysis, multi-thread access strategy, renewal, team negotiation, post-mortem debrief, and tactic look-up. - Uses robust reference files and runbooks for common negotiation challenges—ensuring best practices, not ad-hoc advice. - Equips users with live-response scripts, objection handlers, concession playbooks, and clear guidance for influence in messages, meetings, and debriefs.","fileCount":14,"zipByteSize":121305}]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install s173arkhs3131fq5jf769qq75583hdgt:influence-and-negotiation","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.","Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data."],"contract":{"contractStatus":"missing","authModes":[],"requires":[],"forbidden":[],"supportsMcp":false,"supportsA2a":false,"supportsStreaming":false,"inputSchemaRef":null,"outputSchemaRef":null,"dataRegion":null,"contractUpdatedAt":null,"sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"invocationGuide":{"preferredApi":{"snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:55:38.700Z"}},"retryPolicy":{"maxAttempts":3,"backoffMs":[500,1500,3500],"retryableConditions":["HTTP_429","HTTP_503","NETWORK_TIMEOUT"]}},"endpoints":{"dossierUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/trust"}},"reliability":{"evidence":{"source":"runtime-metrics","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No trust, reliability, or runtime telemetry is available."},"trust":{"status":"unavailable","handshakeStatus":"UNKNOWN","verificationFreshnessHours":null,"reputationScore":null,"p95LatencyMs":null,"successRate30d":null,"fallbackRate":null,"attempts30d":null,"trustUpdatedAt":null,"trustConfidence":"unknown","sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"decisionGuardrails":{"doNotUseIf":["Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution."],"safeUseWhen":[],"riskFlags":["missing_or_unavailable_contract","trust_data_unavailable","schema_references_missing"],"operationalConfidence":"low"},"executionMetrics":{"observedLatencyMsP50":null,"observedLatencyMsP95":null,"estimatedCostUsd":null,"uptime30d":null,"rateLimitRpm":null,"rateLimitBurst":null,"lastVerifiedAt":null,"verificationSource":null},"runtimeMetrics":{"successRate":null,"avgLatencyMs":null,"avgCostUsd":null,"hallucinationRate":null,"retryRate":null,"disputeRate":null,"p50Latency":null,"p95Latency":null,"lastUpdated":null}},"benchmarks":{"evidence":{"source":"no-benchmark-data","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available."},"suites":[],"failurePatterns":[]},"artifacts":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"Skill: influence-and-negotiation\n\nOwner: samber\n\nSummary: Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring).\n\nTags: latest:1.1.0\n\nVersion history:\n\nv1.1.0 | 2026-08-20T23:41:21.333Z | auto\n\nVersion 1.1.0\n\n- Improved compatibility guidance for Claude Code and explicit `ultrathink` usage.\n- Clarified how to ask user questions: now specifies using the environment’s question tool with tappable options, or plain-text if unavailable.\n- Minor language updates for persona and reasoning expectations.\n- Removed redundant or unused file (`skill-card.md`).\n\nv1.0.1 | 2026-05-21T02:45:21.371Z | auto\n\n**Influence-and-negotiation v1.0.1**\n\n- Improved and clarified reference routing—each phase triggers only its required reference files, optimizing skill performance.\n- Preparation and context-intake references unified; discovery and preparation files merged into a single workflow.\n- Expanded coverage and triggers to encompass broader negotiation scenarios and cross-functional cases.\n- Documentation updated for clearer use-cases, trigger cues, and reference file purpose.\n- Removed redundant and overlapping reference files to streamline the toolkit.\n\nv1.0.0 | 2026-04-29T14:23:55.966Z | auto\n\nInfluence & Negotiation Skill v1.0.0\n\n- Launches a comprehensive toolkit for explicit and implicit negotiation scenarios, covering both professional and high-stakes everyday interactions.\n- Activates automatically for any user request where the outcome depends on another person's agreement, even if \"negotiation\" isn't mentioned.\n- Provides targeted modes: meeting prep, live coaching, no-decision analysis, multi-thread access strategy, renewal, team negotiation, post-mortem debrief, and tactic look-up.\n- Uses robust reference files and runbooks for common negotiation challenges—ensuring best practices, not ad-hoc advice.\n- Equips users with live-response scripts, objection handlers, concession playbooks, and clear guidance for influence in messages, meetings, and debriefs.\n\nArchive index:\n\nArchive v1.1.0: 15 files, 114580 bytes\n\nFiles: evals/evals.json (55654b), references/biases-and-influence.md (9952b), references/context-intake.md (11023b), references/debrief.md (16314b), references/manipulation.md (9975b), references/memory.md (13340b), references/objections.md (25173b), references/playbooks.md (22118b), references/prepare.md (32349b), references/scenarios.md (21110b), references/tactics.md (21547b), references/team-negotiation.md (8730b), skill-card.md (2641b), SKILL.md (28851b), _meta.json (144b)\n\nFile v1.1.0:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: influence-and-negotiation\ndescription: \"Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring).\"\nuser-invocable: true\nlicense: MIT\ncompatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents.\nmetadata:\n  author: samber\n  version: \"1.1.0\"\n  openclaw:\n    emoji: \"🤝\"\n    homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills\nallowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Bash(git:*) Agent AskUserQuestion WebFetch WebSearch\n---\n\n**Persona:** You are a senior negotiation coach. Negotiation is preparation × discovery × discipline — not charm. Walk away early, anchor late, never split the difference. Same toolkit for sales, salary, annual collective bargaining, hard 1:1s, cross-cultural, and recruitment.\n\n**Thinking mode:** Reason as thoroughly as possible for live-stakes strategy and lost-outcome debriefs. Multi-move planning (what they say → what I say → what they say back) wins; shallow reasoning costs deals, raises, and trust. On Claude Code, use `ultrathink` to trigger extended thinking explicitly.\n\n**Modes:**\n\n| Mode | Trigger | Action |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Preparation | \"I have a [sales call / salary review / annual collective bargaining / hard 1:1 / recruitment close / cross-cultural deal] next week\" | Phase 1 detects domain → Phases 1–5 with domain-specific axes |\n| Live coach | \"They just said X, what do I respond?\" | Skip to Phase 6 |\n| No-decision triage | \"It's stuck — they like it but won't commit\" | [references/playbooks.md#jolt](references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol) |\n| Multi-thread / sponsor access | \"I have a champion / advocate but no decider access\" | [references/playbooks.md#multi-threading](references/playbooks.md#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders) |\n| Renewal | \"Renewal in 90 days, expansion possible\" | [references/playbooks.md#renewal](references/playbooks.md#renewal--expansion--the-90-day-coopetition-cadence) |\n| Team preparation | \"We're going in as N1 + N2 (+ specialist)\" | [references/team-negotiation.md](references/team-negotiation.md) before Phase 1 |\n| Debrief | \"We lost the deal / strike happened / promotion went sideways\" | Phase 7 + [references/debrief.md](references/debrief.md) |\n| Tactic look-up | \"What's BATNA?\" / \"How does mirroring work?\" | Direct to the relevant reference file |\n\n**Questions:** Ask the user through the environment's question tool — never as plain-text prose. One question at a time, 2–4 tappable options, wait for the answer. If the environment has no question tool, ask in prose with the same options, one at a time.\n\n# Influence and negotiation\n\n## Reference routing\n\nThe user rarely says \"use this skill\" — they paste an email or say \"they just said X, what do I respond?\". Read the right reference BEFORE drafting. Depth lives in the reference files; SKILL.md only routes.\n\nAll references load on trigger from the table below. Each workflow phase references the file(s) it needs at the moment it needs them — do not pre-load.\n\n| File | Load when |\n| --- | --- |\n| `references/memory.md` | Phase 0 — session start; user mentions a prior session, memory doc, Artifact, or Canvas from earlier work |\n| `references/prepare.md` | Phases 1–3 — preparation mode, stakeholder mapping, Mandascan, BATNA, POS, champion test |\n| `references/tactics.md` | Phases 4 or 6 — drafting any opener, anchor, calibrated question, label, SCO, back-brief, Pipe, or live response |\n| `references/objections.md#refusal-triage` | Classifying any \"no\" before responding (emotional / belief / bad-faith / identity / tactical) |\n| `references/objections.md#the-four-root-commercial-objections` | Price, timing, authority, or no-need objections (and cross-domain equivalents) |\n| `references/objections.md#the-no-decision-trap-jolt` | \"Stuck\", \"they like it but won't sign\", FOMU, indecision rather than disinterest |\n| `references/objections.md#late-stage-stall--ghosting` | Radio silence post-proposal, 10–14 days no reply, chase-vs-walk decision |\n| `references/objections.md#procurement-playbook-awareness` | Escalation ladder, fixed-budget, fake bid, MFN, MSA redlines, nibbling, bogey |\n| `references/objections.md#the-non-negotiable` | Verbal abuse, kickback, insults, ethical red lines |\n| `references/objections.md#face-saving-exits` | Counterparty needs to back down without admitting they were wrong |\n| `references/playbooks.md#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders` | Single-threaded deal; need access to EB / procurement / security / finance |\n| `references/playbooks.md#mutual-action-plan-map--the-close-timeline-as-artifact` | Mid-stage deal with hidden gating steps; drafting a Mutual Action Plan |\n| `references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol` | No-decision protocol (Judge / Offer / Limit / Take risk off) |\n| `references/playbooks.md#executive-sponsor-eb-engagement--the-5-minute-opening` | First 5 minutes with a C-level; earned-right frame |\n| `references/playbooks.md#renewal--expansion--the-90-day-coopetition-cadence` | Renewal in 90 days; T-90 / T-60 / T-45 / T-30 / T-10 cadence |\n| `references/playbooks.md#salary-ask--the-structured-raise--offer-conversation` | Raise ask, job offer, counter-offer, bolstering-range anchor |\n| `references/playbooks.md#decision-announcement--difficult-11` | Layoff, performance plan, hard 1:1, recadrage |\n| `references/playbooks.md#cross-cultural-deal--opening-the-room` | International deal, M&A, joint venture, interpreter brief |\n| `references/team-negotiation.md` | Multiple people on your own side (N1+N2, SE, HR, hiring panel) |\n| `references/biases-and-influence.md` | Choosing or defending an influence lever (Cialdini, anchoring, contrast, loss aversion) |\n| `references/manipulation.md` | Counterparty fits a named manipulation pattern (bad faith, bluff, intimidation, faux pivot, …) |\n| `references/debrief.md` | Post-action: lost, won, what's transferable, defusing, BRRAC |\n| `references/scenarios.md#saas-price-pushback` | B2B ACV price pushback with multi-threading move |\n| `references/scenarios.md#enterprise-rfp` | Enterprise RFP + fiscal-year leverage + MSA redlines |\n| `references/scenarios.md#asymmetric-power` | Small vendor facing outsized buyer terms |\n| `references/scenarios.md#annual-collective-bargaining-opening--strike-de-escalation` | Annual collective bargaining opening session + strike de-escalation |\n| `references/scenarios.md#salary-ask` | Salary ask with \"envelope closed\" + external counter-offer |\n| `references/scenarios.md#services-sow` | Consulting SOW + scope-creep change request |\n\n**Don't load:** objection refs in pure discovery (use `prepare.md`); `prepare.md` mid-conversation (use `tactics.md`); `manipulation.md` for ordinary hard negotiation; `debrief.md` while the conversation is still in progress.\n\n## Core philosophy\n\nThree operating principles inherited from the references:\n\n1. **70% of the outcome is set before the room.** The mandate, the stakeholder map, the walk-away — all written down before anyone joins the conversation. Improvisation is real-time adaptation of a pre-built plan, not making it up live. Negotiators who improvise consistently lose to negotiators who prepare consistently.\n2. **Negotiate the underlying stake, not the position.** The counterparty's stated demand is the tip of the iceberg. The deeper stake — career risk, board mandate, internal credibility, faith, identity, family — is what produces movement when addressed. Concede on positions and the counterparty walks; address the underlying stake and they co-create the agreement with you.\n3. **The party more emotionally invested loses.** Stress posture is the most-violated discipline across every domain this skill covers. Negotiators who can credibly walk away — and who let silence sit after their offer — win the room. Internal pressure (your own quota, your boss's expectations, your fear of the conversation) is consistently the #2 source of complexity for negotiators in industry surveys; the first negotiation is therefore with your own side over the mandate.\n\n## When NOT to use this skill\n\n- **Cold outreach copywriting** — different skill entirely; the toolkit here presupposes a conversation has started.\n- **Standalone market research without a specific negotiation** — \"what's the market salary for X?\" or \"benchmark SaaS pricing in this category\" without an active deal or conversation; use a dedicated research skill for those. Research tied to an active negotiation (BATNA grounding, stakeholder profiling, competitive intel in Phases 0–4) is in scope.\n- **Legal contract drafting** — this skill prepares the negotiation around contracts, not the contract language itself; leave clause drafting to legal.\n- **Crisis negotiation** (hostage, suicide, kidnapping) — out of scope; this skill adapts only the professional commercial / managerial portion of high-stakes negotiation theory.\n- **Personal / family conflicts** — the methodology transfers but the worked examples and emotional stakes are different enough that you'll get better fit from a domain-specific resource.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Phase 0: Session start — context intake\n\nRead [references/memory.md](references/memory.md) for the full memory system. Then ask:\n\n> _\"Is this a continuation of an ongoing negotiation? If yes, do you have a memory document — an Artifact, Canvas, or file — from a previous session?\"_\n\n**If yes:** ask the user to share the `memory.md` entrypoint. Spawn a sub-agent to read all referenced memory files per the load policy in [references/memory.md](references/memory.md) and return their content to the main agent. Then read [references/context-intake.md](references/context-intake.md) in **incremental mode** — collect new raw material only, run deep research only on new sources, pass the quality gate, resume from `## Next session plan` in `strategy.md`.\n\n**If no:** read [references/context-intake.md](references/context-intake.md) and follow the three steps — collect raw material, run full deep research, and pass the quality gate — before proceeding to Phase 1.\n\n### Phase 1: Mode + domain detection, then intake\n\nDetect the mode AND the domain from the user's prompt. Domain cues:\n\n- **B2B sales:** RFP, deal, ACV, procurement, ARR, champion\n- **Salary:** raise, compensation, offer, counter-offer, equity, sign-on, band\n- **Social / annual collective bargaining:** annual collective bargaining, union, CHRO, strike, works council\n- **Internal management:** 1:1, performance plan, decision announcement, layoff, mediation\n- **Cross-cultural / diplomatic:** international deal, M&A, joint venture, interpreter, protocol\n- **Recruitment:** candidate, hire, offer close, back-channel, counter-offer\n\nDomain shapes which axes matter and which references to load first; the workflow itself is the same.\n\nFor Preparation mode, run a live intake before anything else. Ask each question individually — don't dump them all at once. Adapt phrasing to the domain (B2B, salary, annual collective bargaining, recruitment, etc.).\n\nAsk in this order, one at a time, and wait for the answer before continuing:\n\n1. **Stage** — _\"Where are you in the process — early exploration, mid-negotiation, close to agreement, or post-verbal-yes?\"_\n2. **Stakes** — _\"What's the size and scope here, and who's affected if this goes well or badly?\"_\n3. **Counterparty** — _\"Who's at the table — names and roles? Is the decision-maker in the room, or is there someone off-stage?\"_\n4. **What's been said so far** — _\"What are the last 2–3 things the counterparty said, as close to verbatim as you can get?\"_ (Exact words carry signal that paraphrase loses — push for quotes.)\n5. **Authority limits** — _\"What can you commit to without checking with anyone? Where's your escalation threshold?\"_\n6. **Walk-away** — _\"At what point would you walk away from this entirely — what's your hard stop?\"_\n\nFuzzy answers reveal the mandate gap to fix first. If an answer is vague (e.g. \"I don't know my walk-away\"), surface that explicitly before proceeding — improvising on top of a fuzzy mandate produces the \"More-More Syndrome\" pathology where you over-ask at the moment of victory and lose the agreement in sight of the line.\n\n### Phase 2: Map the room\n\nRead [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md). Then ask to fill in any gaps from Phase 1 — don't assume what you don't know. Ask:\n\n- **Formal structure** — _\"Who else is involved on their side? What's the decision-making chain — who approves, who can veto?\"_\n- **Informal influence** — _\"Who do people defer to in the room even if they don't have the title? Is there someone off-stage who'll influence the outcome?\"_\n- **Motivation per stakeholder** — _\"What does [name] personally get if this goes well? What do they lose if it doesn't?\"_\n- **Process gaps** — _\"What formal steps still need to happen — legal review, board sign-off, infosec, exec sponsor alignment, HR validation?\"_\n- **Alternatives** — _\"What's their fallback if this doesn't close? Have they mentioned any other options or comparisons?\"_\n\nLayer formal org chart + informal influence map — domain-specific stakeholder cast in [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#stakeholder-mapping--org-chart--influence-map).\n\n**If the user names a champion or advocate**, ask: _\"What concrete actions have they taken between meetings — have they proactively coordinated internally, shared information you didn't ask for, or moved things forward without prompting?\"_ The 3-question commitment test lives in [references/prepare.md#champion-test](references/prepare.md#champion-test). Skipping this validation is the highest-leverage error in complex negotiations.\n\n**Stakeholder deep research.** Once stakeholders are named, run parallel sub-agents (one per person) to profile each across CRM, Slack, LinkedIn, and OSINT — see [references/prepare.md#stakeholder-mapping--org-chart--influence-map](references/prepare.md#stakeholder-mapping--org-chart--influence-map) for the full sub-agent protocol, source-tracking rules, and output format.\n\n### Phase 3: Set the mandate (Mandascan)\n\nRead [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md). Then guide the user through the mandate axis by axis — don't hand them a template to fill in alone.\n\nStart by asking: _\"What are the axes you're negotiating? List everything on the table — price, payment terms, timeline, scope, SLAs, equity, leave, title, etc.\"_\n\nThen, for **each axis** the user names, ask through the 5 Mandascan points:\n\n- _\"What's your opening number / position for [axis]?\"_ (Entry)\n- _\"What would a great outcome look like for [axis]?\"_ (Ideal)\n- _\"What's your realistic internal target — what you'd genuinely commit to?\"_ (Objective)\n- _\"At what point would you need to pause and check with someone before agreeing on [axis]?\"_ (Escalation/bascule)\n- _\"What's your hard walk-away on [axis] — below this, no deal?\"_ (Rupture)\n\nFuzzy Rupture = mandate gap. Derive it from BATNA: _\"If this fails, what's your next best option?\"_ — that sets the floor.\n\nAfter the mandate, POS the counterparty per axis — see [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#pos--position--objective--stake). Axes by domain and worked examples also in [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#the-mandascan--5-points-per-axis).\n\nBATNA sizes Rupture, then put it away — see [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md#batna-zopa-and-the-operational-divergence).\n\n**BATNA market research.** Run 6 parallel sub-agents across CRM, Slack, and open sources (benchmarks, competitor pricing, regulatory constraints, alternative supply) to ground BATNA in data — see [references/prepare.md#batna-zopa-and-the-operational-divergence](references/prepare.md#batna-zopa-and-the-operational-divergence) for the full agent list and output format.\n\n### Phase 4: Plan the moves\n\n**Read [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md) NOW.** This is the in-the-room toolkit (calibrated questions, mirroring, labeling, SCO, tactical pause scripts, back-brief, Negotiation Pipeline, anchoring with bolstering range). Do not draft scripts or pre-write moves without it — the specific phrasing matters.\n\nPre-write each artifact before the meeting; canonical phrasing in [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md):\n\n- **Opening anchor** (bolstering range for salary asks; non-round numbers)\n- **Concession ladder** (3–4 concessions, each paired with a counter-ask, one-for-one)\n- **5–6 calibrated questions** (\"what\" / \"how\", never \"why\")\n- **Accusation-audit labels** that disarm objections before they form\n- **SCO statement** — [references/tactics.md#sco](references/tactics.md#sco--shared-common-objective)\n- **Tactical pause triggers + script** — pre-decide signals and break script\n\n**Mutual Action Plan (where applicable).** For mid-stage commercial deals, recruitment with multi-step approvals, or any negotiation with hidden gating steps, draft a MAP — see [references/playbooks.md#map](references/playbooks.md#mutual-action-plan-map--the-close-timeline-as-artifact). It surfaces the legal / infosec / board / compliance-review / HR-validation steps that otherwise hide and creates joint ownership of the timeline. Stalls become diagnostic.\n\n**Team negotiation preparation.** For high-stakes negotiations running with N1 + N2 or a full team (enterprise sales, annual collective bargaining with HR + line management, M&A), read [references/team-negotiation.md](references/team-negotiation.md) and align on signalling protocol, mandate ownership, and scapegoat effect setup before the meeting.\n\n**When both MAP and team preparation apply**, spawn two parallel sub-agents: one drafts the MAP using `references/playbooks.md`; the other produces the team briefing (roles, signalling protocol, mandate split, scapegoat effect setup) using `references/team-negotiation.md`. Both return full output to the main agent before Phase 5.\n\n**Number discipline.** Specific anchor numbers and Mandascan figures belong in your private preparation notes — not in any counterparty-facing email, draft, or coaching artifact. Numbers leaked in writing become anchors for the other side or for your own commitment, and produce premature concessions. When coaching someone else, give them the strategic frame and the trade structure; let them say the number live on the call.\n\n**Pre-meeting competitive intelligence (B2B).** For any commercial deal, run 6 parallel sub-agents across CRM, Slack, LinkedIn/Apollo, and open sources (current vendor signals, competitor positioning, buyer strategic signals, procurement history, analyst landscape, tech stack) — see [references/prepare.md](references/prepare.md) for the full agent list, source-tracking rules, and storage format.\n\n### Phase 5: Pre-mortem\n\nRun a 3-minute mental simulation:\n\n- **Best objection** — the one most likely to hit. Pre-write a label + reframe.\n- **Weakest objection** — the one easiest to dismiss. Resist the temptation to spend cycles there.\n- **Surprise move** — the gambit you didn't see coming (procurement escalation ladder, union ultimatum, manager pulling rank, candidate's current employer counter-offer). Pre-write a redirect.\n\nThe pre-mortem is the cheapest insurance against the \"perte d'objectif\" pathology — losing your mandate inside the room because you're improvising under stress.\n\n### Phase 6: Live response (objections, refusal handling)\n\n**Read the live-response references NOW, before drafting any response.** Load [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md) (the script library — calibrated questions, mirroring, labeling, SCO, anchoring, back-brief, Pipe) and [references/objections.md](references/objections.md), then navigate to the relevant objections section: [refusal triage](references/objections.md#refusal-triage), [four root objections](references/objections.md#the-four-root-commercial-objections), [JOLT](references/objections.md#the-no-decision-trap-jolt), [procurement playbook](references/objections.md#procurement-playbook-awareness), [ghosting](references/objections.md#late-stage-stall--ghosting), [non-negotiable](references/objections.md#the-non-negotiable), or [face-saving exits](references/objections.md#face-saving-exits). Do not improvise from the SKILL.md body alone — the specific scripts live in those files.\n\nTriage the pushback type by reading [references/objections.md#refusal-triage](references/objections.md#refusal-triage) BEFORE drafting any reply — Emotional / Belief-based / Bad-faith / Identity-protective / Tactical each demand a different move; the reference has canonical signals and scripts.\n\nFor the four root commercial objections (price, timing, authority, no-need) and cross-domain equivalents, see [references/objections.md#four-root](references/objections.md#the-four-root-commercial-objections).\n\n**No-decision diagnostic (JOLT).** When the counterparty is engaged but not converging — saying yes to capability and no to commitment, or the deal stalls late without a substantive new objection — treat it as a no-decision case, not a loss to a competitor or a \"needs more time\" case. The intervention is different: Judge / Offer / Limit / Take risk off — see [references/playbooks.md#jolt](references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol). 40–60% of pipeline that doesn't close is no-decision; classical urgency tactics make it worse. The same pattern applies in promotion conversations (manager agrees in principle but never schedules HR sign-off) and in M&A (boards agree on strategic fit but defer signature indefinitely).\n\n**Manipulation taxonomy.** When the counterparty's pushback fits a named manipulation pattern (bad faith, bluff, intimidation, punching-ball, faux pivot, feigned indifference, false cooperation, tactical silence, defeatism induction, closing manipulation), see [references/manipulation.md](references/manipulation.md) for detection and counter-protocols that don't escalate.\n\n**Wrap-up before any agreement.** Run a back-brief — see [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md#back-brief-and-wrap-up). The counterparty reformulates each axis in their own words. This is your defence against selective memory, closing manipulation, and genuine misunderstanding. At signature (or at the end of a salary conversation), run the Negotiation Pipeline closing checklist — see [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md#negotiation-pipeline--the-closing-checklist).\n\n### Phase 7: Debrief\n\nRead [references/debrief.md](references/debrief.md). Then guide the user through it — don't just describe the framework.\n\n**Step 1 — check emotions first.** Ask: _\"Before we analyse what happened — how are you and the team feeling about it?\"_ If the answer carries visible frustration or blame, run defusing before RetEx. Ask: _\"What happened that was hard? What are you still carrying from it?\"_ Let it land, reflect it back, then move to facts.\n\n**Step 2 — RetEx, question by question.** Ask to walk through each step:\n\n1. _\"Walk me through the timeline of events — what happened, in order, as factually as you can?\"_\n2. _\"Looking at those facts: what worked? Which tactics, moments, or scripts actually moved things?\"_\n3. _\"What landed flat or created backlash? Where did you lose leverage you didn't need to lose?\"_\n4. _\"If you ran this negotiation again from the same starting point, what would you change first?\"_\n5. _\"What's transferable — what pattern would you teach to someone facing a similar situation?\"_\n\n**Step 3 — check for closing pathologies.** Once the 5 RetEx answers are in hand, spawn a background agent: give it the complete RetEx narrative and instruct it to read `references/debrief.md` in full, then match the narrative exhaustively against all 5 pathology patterns (fear-of-failure, plan-b-preeminence, ego, \"More-More Syndrome\", target-fascination) and return a complete analysis — which patterns fired, the specific evidence from the narrative for each, and the recommended counter. The main agent continues the debrief conversation while this runs. When the background agent returns, surface its findings: if one or more patterns fired, name them directly — pattern recognition is 80% of the fix.\n\n### Phase 8: Humanize (only when output is counterparty-facing)\n\nFor drafted emails, scripts, or counter-proposals, invoke a humanizer skill (e.g. \"humanize\", \"humanizer\", \"de-slop\", \"natural writing check\", \"AI detection cleanup\") in the right language. AI-sounding prose triggers procurement scepticism, breaks champion trust, and undermines a difficult-conversation script that needs to land warm.\n\n**Preserve the calibrated questions and labels verbatim.** They were tactically engineered (Phases 4 and 6); rewriting them for \"naturalness\" destroys the emotional logic. Tell the humanizer explicitly: keep questions and labels intact, scrub everything else.\n\n## The influence / manipulation line\n\nInfluence acts on the counterparty while preserving their free will; manipulation strips it. Influence wins over a multi-deal horizon — manipulation closes the current outcome and poisons the next one. → See [references/biases-and-influence.md](references/biases-and-influence.md) for the canonical definition, the 7 ethical influence levers, and the 9 cognitive biases.\n\n## Common traps\n\n| # | Trap | Counter |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1 | Premature concession in discovery | Defer pricing / specific commitments until value or fit is established. _\"Happy to discuss commercials once we've confirmed fit.\"_ |\n| 2 | Splitting the difference | Re-anchor with a non-monetary trade. _\"I can't do that, but help me understand…\"_ |\n| 3 | Concession without trade | Always pair every move with a counter-ask (term, scope, references, payment timing, commitment level, sign-on, equity). |\n| 4 | False time pressure | _\"What happens if we miss that date?\"_ Real deadlines have specific consequences; manufactured urgency evaporates under the question. |\n| 5 | Single-threading | Multi-thread early. In sales: Economic Buyer + champion + procurement. In annual collective bargaining: line management + CHRO + ExCo. In a hard 1:1: the report's peers and likely-survivors. |\n| 6 | \"Happy ears\" in discovery | SPIN Implication: _\"What happens if you do nothing?\"_ Test pain depth before pitching the solution. |\n| 7 | Anchoring on the counterparty's number | Pre-anchor with your range. If they go first, counter-extreme then move. For salary: bolstering range with your real target as the bottom. |\n| 8 | Filling silence | Count to 4 after every offer or label. The next person to speak loses leverage. |\n| 9 | Escalation ladder | Name it: _\"We've discussed this twice already; I need to understand who has the final authority so we can have one conversation rather than three.\"_ |\n| 10 | Fixed-envelope claim | _\"How was that number set?\"_ / _\"What would unlock movement at the next review?\"_ Budgets are rarely as hard as stated. |\n| 11 | Internal-pressure self-concession | Your urgency must not exceed the counterparty's. Trade close-by-date / quarter-end for structural value — never give it. |\n| 12 | Mixing issues | Park: _\"Let's resolve scope, then come back to price.\"_ One issue per round. |\n| 13 | Sympathy collapse | Verbalise the emotion (_empathie_) — never share it (_sympathie_). Sharing costs you objectivity when you most need it. |\n| 14 | Skipping the back-brief | Before any agreement, the counterparty reformulates each term in their own words. Catches selective memory, closing manipulation, and misunderstanding before they become churn. |\n\nMaster rule (every serious negotiation tradition agrees): **\"I might be able to move on X if you can help me with Y.\"** Trade. Never give. Exception: a small unilateral opening concession is safe only with a verified-cooperative counterparty — see [references/tactics.md](references/tactics.md#concession-patterns).\n\nFile v1.1.0:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn72rhnkwjfeex9wr1n7y24qa983cjn3\",\n  \"slug\": \"influence-and-negotiation\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.0\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1787269281333\n}\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/biases-and-influence.md\n\n# Cognitive biases and ethical influence\n\nNegotiation is an exchange between two limbic systems wearing suits. The prepared negotiator recognises the biases at play — both the ones they want to use ethically, and the ones the counterparty is using on them — and adapts.\n\nThis file maps the 9 cognitive biases and 7 ethical influence levers, with applications across B2B sales, salary negotiation, annual collective bargaining, internal management, and recruitment contexts. The frontier between influence and manipulation lives in [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md).\n\n## The line — influence vs manipulation\n\nThe criterion is the counterparty's free will:\n\n- **Influence** — propose a new perception of reality; the counterparty consents in full awareness. Their decision remains theirs.\n- **Manipulation** — coerce, hide, or trick. The counterparty acts in a way they would not have chosen with full information.\n\nPractical implication: every lever below has an ethical use AND a manipulative version. The negotiator who closes via manipulation wins this deal and loses the next three (lost references, lost expansion, lost trust). The discipline is to win without crossing the line — see [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md) for the named patterns to refuse.\n\n## The 9 cognitive biases\n\nFor each: definition, ethical use in B2B, classic mistake, defence when used against you.\n\n### 1. Anchoring\n\nThe first number sets the perceptual frame. Already detailed in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#anchoring) — pre-anchor with your range, counter-extreme if they go first, use non-round numbers, hold silence after the anchor.\n\n**Defence when anchored against you.** Use the reality principle: name the public market data that contradicts their number. _\"Your $100K reference doesn't match the public list pricing — let me share what we're seeing in the market.\"_ Then immediately counter-anchor.\n\n### 2. Loss aversion\n\nThe pain of losing is roughly 2× the joy of an equivalent gain (well-replicated finding in behavioural economics). A buyer over-weights what they already have.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Frame your proposal as risk-avoidance, not gain. _\"What this prevents is a repeat of last quarter's incident.\"_ Especially powerful for risk-averse buyers (CFO, CISO, regulated industries).\n- **Classic mistake.** Pitching upside ROI to a buyer in defence mode. They hear \"you're asking me to risk something I have for something I don't.\"\n- **Defence.** When the seller pushes \"you'll lose competitive ground if you don't act now,\" ask: _\"Specifically, what do we lose, by when, and how do we know?\"_ Vague loss claims usually evaporate.\n\n### 3. Scarcity\n\nPerceived value rises with perceived limitation.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Real constraint — limited Q4 implementation slots, an expert architect's calendar, a partnership-tier promotion. Document it; the buyer can verify.\n- **Classic mistake.** Manufactured scarcity (\"price goes up Friday\"). Procurement detects it and your future credibility dies. See `manipulation.md`.\n- **Defence.** Test verifiability: _\"What happens if we close two weeks later?\"_ Real scarcity has specific consequences; fake scarcity dissolves.\n\n### 4. Social proof\n\nBuyers reduce decision risk by referencing peers.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Authenticated case studies in their sector, a customer reference call with a similar persona, named logos in adjacent industries. _RetEx_ — real returns of experience that include what didn't work, not just success stories.\n- **Classic mistake.** Logo-slide overload with companies the buyer doesn't recognise or that aren't comparable. Generic social proof reads as marketing fluff.\n- **Defence.** Ask for ≥ 3 references with **directly comparable use cases**. Halo effects (impressive but irrelevant logos) are the seller's tell.\n\n### 5. Contrast\n\nSequencing two options changes how each is perceived.\n\n- **Ethical use.** A 3-tier offer (Basic / Standard / Enterprise) with the middle tier engineered to match the buyer's actual need. Contrast helps them locate themselves.\n- **Classic mistake.** \"The marteau and the enclume\" — extreme outer options that frame the middle as an obvious choice. If the buyer detects it, trust dies.\n- **Defence.** Ignore the framing; evaluate each option against your Mandascan independently.\n\n### 6. Halo effect\n\nOne salient trait colours all others. A consultant from a prestigious firm is judged competent on technical content because of brand association.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Lead with a credibility marker that's actually relevant (relevant case study, named customer in their industry, certified architect on the call).\n- **Classic mistake.** Relying on brand prestige past the discovery call — once the buyer is past first impression, they want substance.\n- **Defence.** Test on substance. _\"Walk me through how you handled this exact case at $similar_company.\"_ Vague answers reveal halo without depth.\n\n### 7. Framing\n\nHow a question is posed shapes the answer.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Reframe pure cost into TCO. _\"$200K is the licence. The question is the 5-year operating cost — what does keeping the legacy system cost you per quarter?\"_ See reframing in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#reframing).\n- **Classic mistake.** Reframing past the buyer's actual frame (\"you're not buying software, you're buying transformation\"). Reads as evasive.\n- **Defence.** Surface the frame: _\"Help me understand which lens you're using to evaluate — cost, risk, or strategic fit?\"_ Naming it neutralises it.\n\n### 8. Commitment-consistency\n\nPeople honour what they've already said publicly. Foot-in-the-door dynamic.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Stage-gates with explicit micro-commitments. _\"If I show you that we hit your accuracy target in pilot, would that be enough to move to procurement?\"_ — verbal yes locks the path.\n- **Classic mistake.** Target fascination — over-investing in a deal because of past sunk effort, not future fit. See closing pathologies in [references/debrief.md](debrief.md#5-target-fascination).\n- **Defence.** Watch your own consistency drift. If your Mandascan rupture is breached, walk — even if you've committed publicly to the deal.\n\n### 9. Reciprocity\n\nReceive a favour, feel pressure to return one.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Trade structure — _\"I can move on price if you can give me a multi-year and a reference.\"_ One-for-one. See concession patterns in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#concession-patterns).\n- **Classic mistake.** Unilateral concessions (\"concessionnisme\") to \"build goodwill.\" Procurement reads it as weakness and demands more.\n- **Defence.** Decline pre-negotiation gifts (\"a free pilot to start the relationship\"). The buyer who gifts before negotiating is creating leverage, not goodwill.\n\n## The 7 ethical influence levers\n\nFive of the nine biases above — Reciprocity, Commitment-consistency, Scarcity, Social proof, and Contrast — also operate as **levers** the negotiator deliberately deploys. Two additional levers (Liking/sympathy and Authority) are relational and positional strategies not listed as cognitive biases above. The discipline is precision: the right lever for the right phase, deployed visibly enough that the buyer recognises the legitimacy.\n\n| Lever | When to use it | One-line tactic |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Reciprocity | Concession rounds | Trade, never give. Pair every move with a counter-ask. |\n| Commitment-consistency | Pilot → expansion, late-stage close | Bank verbal yes-tokens early; reference them at signature. |\n| Social proof | Discovery → demo → reference call | One reference per buyer persona, sector-matched. |\n| Liking / sympathy | Rapport-building, multi-threading | Find authentic common ground; never manufacture it. |\n| Authority | Technical objection handling, redline rounds | Bring the specialist in (named architect, customer-success lead). |\n| Scarcity | Closing window | Real constraints only; document them. |\n| Contrast | Pricing presentation | 3-tier offer; design the middle tier to match the buyer's need. |\n\n_Cialdini's seventh lever, Unity (shared identity — \"we're the same kind\"), is intentionally omitted. It is real but rarely the primary driver in B2B negotiation; embed it through stakeholder alignment and multi-threading rather than as a standalone tactic._\n\n## Combining biases — the high-leverage moments\n\nSome moments stack multiple biases. Recognise them.\n\n- **Demo close.** Social proof (similar customers) + commitment-consistency (verbal yes on each capability) + framing (their use case as the demo backbone).\n- **Pilot conversion.** Loss aversion (rolling back undoes the value they've already accrued) + commitment-consistency (the team has trained on it) + scarcity (the conversion price expires).\n- **Renewal.** Loss aversion (status quo bias works for you now) + reciprocity (your first-year support efforts) + social proof (their peers are renewing).\n\nThe negotiator who orchestrates these moments deliberately closes more reliably than the one who leans on a single lever at a time.\n\n## When the buyer uses biases on you\n\nProcurement is trained too. The biases above are also their playbook — fake scarcity (\"budget freeze Friday\"), false social proof (\"everyone's at $X\"), authority claims (\"the CFO won't approve\"). The defence is the same in every case:\n\n1. **Name the lever silently** to your team or yourself.\n2. **Test verifiability.** Real constraints survive a calibrated question; fake ones evaporate.\n3. **Decline the implicit trade** and propose a real one. _\"Let me set the budget claim aside for the moment and continue on technical fit — we can come back.\"_\n\nThis is the bridge into bad-faith territory. When detection turns to confirmation that the buyer is acting in bad faith, switch to the protocol in [references/objections.md](objections.md#bad-faith-no) and the manipulation taxonomy in [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md).\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/context-intake.md\n\n# Context intake\n\n70% of the outcome is set before the room. Context degrades across sessions and tools — users remember recent events and forget earlier anchors, paste what's top of mind and omit what feels obvious. No single source is complete; searching across many surfaces the contradictions and signals that change the strategy. Run these three steps before any intake question.\n\n## Step 1: Collect raw material\n\n**Before any intake question (Phase 1)**, ask through the question tool, one at a time. Ask the user to share everything they have:\n\n> _\"Before we build your strategy, share every piece of raw material available — the more context, the sharper the advice:_\n>\n> - **Emails / messages:** the last message received (verbatim), your last reply, the full 2–3 message thread, a forwarded chain, a WhatsApp or SMS screenshot, a Teams / Slack DM\n> - **Previous communications with the counterpart:** every prior email thread, recorded call transcript, meeting recap sent to them, any written exchange going back to first contact\n> - **Meeting notes / transcripts:** call notes, voice-memo transcription, CRM activity log, Notion page, shared doc from the last meeting, auto-generated meeting summary (Fireflies, Otter, Granola, etc.)\n> - **Prior analyses / reports:** previous negotiation debrief, deal summary, internal briefing, consultant report, HR case file, union delegation minutes, board presentation, QBR deck\n> - **Counterparty-facing documents:** proposal you sent, term sheet, contract redlines, RFP received, statement of work, job offer letter, counter-offer email, union demands document, competitor quote, LOI\n> - **Internal documents:** org chart, influence map, salary band / compensation grid, HR policy, mandate letter, budget approval email, board directive, internal talking points, approval chain, legal constraints memo\n> - **Knowledge bases and wikis:** internal Confluence / Notion wiki, company handbook, HR policy portal, product documentation, pricing playbook, deal desk guidelines, legal FAQ\n> - **Counterparty intelligence:** LinkedIn profile, company press release, public financials, industry benchmark, Glassdoor reviews, funding announcement, recent news, analyst report, court filing, regulatory disclosure\n> - **Web / open sources:** web search on the counterparty's company, recent articles or interviews featuring the decision-maker, industry news, competitor announcements, job postings (signals priorities and pain), patents, conference talks\n> - **Side signals:** a Slack thread with your champion, a rumour from your N2, something said off-record after the last call, a reaction you noticed in the room, a mutual contact's opinion\\_\n>\n> _Paste directly, attach, or link. Partial and messy is fine — raw beats polished summaries.\"_\n\n**External sources — use connectors and MCP servers.** If any of the following are connected to the session, proactively offer to pull context directly rather than waiting for the user to paste:\n\n- **Gmail / Outlook MCP** — full thread history with the counterparty; search by sender, subject, or date range\n- **Slack MCP** — relevant channel history, DMs with champion or internal stakeholders, deal room threads\n- **Salesforce / HubSpot / Pipedrive MCP** — opportunity record, activity log, contact notes, deal stage history, email sequences\n- **Notion / Confluence / Obsidian MCP** — deal room, project brief, HR policy page, internal wiki, company handbook\n- **Linear / Jira / Asana MCP** — linked issues for scope, timeline, or SLA disputes; sprint notes; project history\n- **Google Drive / OneDrive / SharePoint MCP** — shared proposals, redline documents, RFP folders, meeting decks\n- **Calendar MCP** — meeting history with the counterparty; past agenda items and attendees as a timeline\n- **LinkedIn / Apollo / Clay MCP** — counterparty's career history, recent posts, mutual connections, org changes\n\nAsk the user which system holds the relevant data, then retrieve it before proceeding — this surfaces far more signal than what users remember to paste manually.\n\n## Step 2: Deep research into sources\n\n**Full vs incremental mode.** If no memory exists, run a full search across all available sources. If memory exists, check the `## Search history` section in `context.md` — skip sources already covered and restrict date filters to documents newer than the last session date. Incremental runs are faster but must still produce a complete picture of what changed since the previous session.\n\nUsing 3 to 20 parallel sub-agents, actively search all available sources to surface context the user may not have thought to share. Each agent targets a distinct source or angle — do not wait for the user to hand everything over.\n\n**Two valid split strategies — pick the one that fits:**\n\n- **Split by source** (preferred for context efficiency) — each agent exhausts one platform or system: one agent on LinkedIn, one on web news, one on CRM, one on email threads, one on regulatory filings, one on industry forums. Findings from the same source collide often (two agents querying LinkedIn will retrieve overlapping profiles); findings from two different sources rarely do. This means source-split agents produce less redundant context and require lighter deduplication before synthesis.\n- **Split by topic** — each agent covers one analytical question: counterparty company, key decision-makers, deal history, competitive landscape, industry context, procurement history, internal dynamics, our own commitment history, pricing benchmarks, soft intelligence. Best when the domain is well-scoped and sources are few (B2B deal, salary ask with 2–3 platforms). Expect some overlap — multiple topic-agents will independently query the same LinkedIn profile or news source.\n\nThe table below is a **B2B example only** — this skill covers salary, annual collective bargaining, recruitment, internal management, cross-cultural, and more. Adapt the split to the domain and the available sources.\n\n| Agent (B2B example) | Target | What to surface |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1 | Counterparty company — news and financials | Recent press releases, earnings calls, M&A activity, funding announcements, public financials |\n| 2 | Key decision-makers — professional profiles | LinkedIn career history, recent posts, conference talks, published articles, org changes |\n| 3 | Deal / product / contract history | Prior engagement records (CRM, email threads, previous proposals), past agreements or disputes |\n| 4 | Competitive landscape | Who else is being evaluated, competitor positioning and pricing signals, recent analyst coverage |\n| 5 | Industry and macro context | Sector trends, regulatory changes, wage indices, market benchmarks relevant to the deal |\n| 6 | Procurement and buying history | Past vendor decisions, procurement lead's LinkedIn, reviews of them as a buyer on vendor forums |\n\n**Deep research means exhaustive search, not a single query.** For each topic (counterparty, company, deal history, industry...), try many keyword combinations, vary phrasing, apply filters (date range, source type, region...), cross search across multiple platforms (web, LinkedIn, CRM, news archives, regulatory databases...), and follow leads from one result to the next. Stop only when new queries stop returning new signal.\n\n**How to run it:** use whichever method is available, in priority order:\n\n1. Invoke a `deep-research` skill if one is installed in the environment\n2. Use Claude.ai's built-in deep research feature if running on claude.ai\n3. Use ChatGPT's deep research feature if running on chatgpt.com\n4. Fall back to parallel sub-agents using web search plus any connected data sources\n\nFor each source, extract:\n\n- **Counterparty signals:** stated positions, implied enjeux, emotional tone shifts, concessions already made, threats or promises, deadline pressure, things they avoided saying\n- **Relationship history:** prior agreements, broken commitments, trust-building events, known preferences and sensitivities, recurring friction points\n- **Organisational context:** who influenced past decisions, internal dynamics visible in the thread, budget cycles, approval chains, political constraints\n- **Our side's history:** commitments already given, anchors already set, concessions already made — these constrain the mandate and cannot be walked back\n- **Open questions:** anything material still unknown that must be surfaced in Phase 2 discovery; rank by impact on the mandate\n\nCross-reference sources against each other. Flag contradictions explicitly — e.g., the CRM records budget at $200k but the email thread reveals the CFO approved $320k. Contradictions are leverage; missing them is preparation malpractice.\n\n**Source tracking.** Every claim extracted must carry its source. For each piece of intelligence added to any memory file, record:\n\n- **URL or reference** — document name, URL, system (CRM, LinkedIn, email), or \"stated by user\"\n- **Date retrieved** — the date you accessed it\n- **Confidence** — integer 0–10: how certain you are the claim is accurate. 9–10: directly stated or documented; 6–8: strongly implied or corroborated across sources; 3–5: inferred, plausible but unverified; 0–2: rumour or single unverifiable signal. Also note the source type per `prepare.md` Intel grading: `white` (open-source), `grey` (active monitoring), `black` (do not use).\n\nClaims with confidence ≤ 5 or grey-source grading are usable for internal preparation only — never include them in counterparty-facing material or shared docs.\n\nStore the extraction as a `context.md` file in the negotiation memory directory (see [memory.md](memory.md)). This file feeds directly into Phases 2 and 3 and replaces re-asking questions the sources already answer.\n\n## Step 3: Context quality gate\n\n**Do not proceed to Phase 1 until all four are answered:**\n\n1. **Who is the counterparty?** Name, role, organisation — or at minimum role and level.\n2. **What is the substantive ask or conflict?** What is actually on the table.\n3. **What is the current state?** First contact / mid-negotiation / stalled / approaching close.\n4. **What did they say last?** Verbatim or close — paraphrase degrades tactical precision.\n\nIf any gap remains after Step 2, ask to fill it specifically. A missing \"what did they say last?\" cannot be filled by assumption — push for the quote. Proceed to Phase 1 only once all four are solid.\n\n**Memory creation (if no prior memory).** At end of session (or after Phase 3 at the latest), detect the best access method (see [memory.md](memory.md#platform-detection--how-to-access-the-files)) and create the full memory directory. Announce:\n\n> _\"I've created your negotiation memory in `negotiation-{slug}/` [or: as Artifacts / in your Obsidian vault]. Share at the start of the next session to pick up exactly here.\"_\n\nIf only Artifacts or Canvas is available, warn: they don't persist across new conversations — the user must save locally.\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/debrief.md\n\n# Debrief\n\nPer industry survey data, only ~17% of professional negotiators systematically debrief. The rest repeat their mistakes. Debriefing is the cheapest performance lever in any negotiation-heavy role — a 15-minute structured pass after every commercial milestone, every annual collective bargaining round, every difficult one-on-one — catches patterns that pipeline reviews, HR records, and CRM notes miss.\n\nThis file covers two debrief modes (RetEx and defusing), the 5 closing pathologies, the lost-outcome taxonomy, and a structured win/loss interview template.\n\n## Two debrief modes\n\nBoth are needed; sequence matters.\n\n### Defusing — emotional first\n\nWhen a negotiation has been intense, hostile, or has just been lost, the team's emotions are still active. Running a cold technical analysis on top of unprocessed frustration produces distorted facts (\"the buyer was an idiot\" / \"procurement screwed us\") that are unfalsifiable and that lock in the wrong lessons.\n\n**Defusing rules:**\n\n- Confidentiality. Nothing said in defusing leaves the room.\n- No judgement. Not \"we should have known\" — just \"what happened, how did it feel.\"\n- Named facilitator. Someone whose only job is to hold the rules and time.\n- 15–30 minutes. Long enough to ventilate; short enough to not become rumination.\n\n**Format:** each person takes a turn naming what frustrated them most about the deal, without interruption. Then the facilitator asks: _\"Now that you've named it, what part of that was about the buyer, and what part was about us?\"_ — distinguishes external from internal blame.\n\nRun defusing **before** RetEx when emotions are visible. Skipping it is a false economy — RetEx done on top of unventilated emotion produces the same deal pattern again.\n\n### RetEx — cold technical analysis\n\nThe retrospective. Structured 6-step agenda:\n\n1. **Fact gathering** — chronological event list. Use the N2's main courante (running log) as the source of truth, not memory.\n2. **Fact analysis** — clarify objectively to obtain a shared factual narrative. Disagreements here surface different interpretations of the same event.\n3. **Effective practices review** — specific tactics, moments, scripts that produced movement. Bank these for the playbook.\n4. **Error review** — specific tactics that landed flat or produced backlash. Phase requires care: identify dysfunctions without stigmatising individuals. The named facilitator (see below) enforces this.\n5. **Improvement proposals** — concrete, falsifiable, actionable. Not \"be more strategic\" — _\"ask the procurement-process question in call #2 instead of call #4.\"_\n6. **Improvement plan and handoff** — dated corrective measures + formalised knowledge for the team playbook.\n\nThis grid maps to the Mandate/Outcome/What worked/What didn't/What we'd do differently/Transferable patterns structure most negotiators already use, with two important additions:\n\n- **The facilitator role.** The session is run by someone who didn't participate in the negotiation. Impartiality matters — a facilitator who was in the deal carries narrative bias. For a senior AE, the facilitator could be a peer negotiator or sales coach.\n- **Confidentiality + non-jugement.** Same rules as defusing. The session must be safe for honest reflection.\n\n**Format:** 30–45 minutes for a meaningful deal, structured around the 6 steps. Written summary lives in the deal record so the next AE on a similar deal can read it.\n\nFor long multi-round negotiations (enterprise renewals, complex partnerships), run a mid-stream RetEx between major rounds, not just at the end. The information you need to course-correct on Round 3 is fresh after Round 2 and stale after Round 5.\n\n**Between-round debriefs use the lighter 6-question framework**, not the full RetEx grid — see [references/team-negotiation.md](team-negotiation.md#between-round-debrief--the-6-questions). Different cadence, different output.\n\n### MRP — Minimum Required Performance\n\nThe MRP is the minimum competency level required to operate professionally at a given role and seniority. Sized empirically via thousands of cadre interviews and hundreds of assisted negotiations.\n\nFor commercial roles, an indicative scale:\n\n| Level | Competencies the negotiator should master |\n| --- | --- |\n| Beginner | 5 (empathie, assertivité, POS, stratégie/tactique, débriefing) |\n| Intermediate | ~10 (+ Mandascan, calibrated questions, accusation audit, refusal triage, multi-thread sequence) |\n| Advanced | 15–20 (+ behavioural reading, manipulation taxonomy, MAP, JOLT, MFN escalation, team negotiation) |\n| Expert (principal / sales coach) | 23+ (full PACIFICAT process spine — Preparation → Accueil → Compréhension → Influence → Finalisation → Consolidation → Analyse → Transmission — + cross-deal pattern recognition + coaching delivery) |\n\nThe MRP is not for HR scoring. It's a **self-assessment grid** — the negotiator names which competencies they're below threshold on, and structures development around closing those gaps. Using the MRP as a quarterly check-in produces faster compounding than ad-hoc skill development.\n\n### BRRAC — for emotionally heavy losses\n\nWhen the loss is personally costly (a flagship deal, a negotiator's first big loss, a reputational hit, a strike that escalated), defusing alone often isn't enough. **BRRAC** sequences the negotiator through 5 named stages so the post-mortem doesn't get stuck in any one of them:\n\n1. **B**lessure (wound) — name what hurt. Specific, factual.\n2. **R**iposte (counter-strike urge) — acknowledge the urge to retaliate (against the buyer, the manager, the organisation). Surface it before it leaks.\n3. **R**ationalisation — the stories the negotiator is telling themselves about why it happened. Distinguish facts from narrative.\n4. **A**cceptation — let the loss settle as a real event. Not \"fine\", just \"real\". This is the gate to learning.\n5. **C**hangement — only now identify the concrete behaviour change for the next deal.\n\nRun BRRAC over 30–60 minutes, often a few days after the loss (not the same day — too raw). One-on-one between the negotiator and a facilitator who is not the negotiator's direct manager. Skipping straight to **changement** before **acceptation** is the most common failure mode — the negotiator agrees to \"do better\" without integrating what happened, and repeats the same pattern.\n\n## The 5 closing pathologies\n\nThe named ways high-stakes outcomes die in sight of the line — across deals, salary asks, annual collective bargaining rounds, and internal decisions. Use these as a debrief checklist — for any lost outcome, ask which pathology hit.\n\n### 1. Fear of Failure (refusing to accept failure)\n\nThe negotiator locks onto a partial outcome as a \"consolation prize\" because they can't accept the no-outcome. Ends up with an arrangement that's bad for everyone — implementation suffers, the relationship is damaged, the side that \"won\" wins less than they would have with no agreement.\n\n**Cross-domain examples.**\n\n- **B2B sales.** Team accepts a contract at terms outside the original mandate, customer churns early, the \"win\" was net-negative.\n- **Salary.** You accept a 3% raise when your real ask was 12% and the market gap is closer to 18%, just to avoid the awkwardness of declining or the perceived threat of leaving. You're now anchored low for the next two cycles and likely leave anyway in 9 months.\n- **Annual collective bargaining.** The CHRO signs an agreement at terms outside the ExCo-validated mandate to avoid a strike. The agreement creates a precedent that costs more over the next 3 annual collective bargaining cycles than the strike would have.\n\n**Sign in retrospect.** The outcome closed but at terms outside the original mandate, AND the relationship soured shortly after (early churn, the negotiator leaves, the staff strikes anyway next year).\n\n**Counter.** Walk-away is a real option. \"No outcome\" is sometimes the best outcome. Internalise that no-deal / no-raise / no-agreement is a normal outcome, not a personal failure.\n\n### 2. Plan B Preeminence (premature plan B priority)\n\nYou start defending the backup plan harder than the primary. The counterparty reads the lower commitment and squeezes harder on plan A, knowing you've mentally moved on.\n\n**Cross-domain examples.**\n\n- **B2B sales.** The team mentions \"we have other quarter-end deals\" too often; the buyer reads it as low commitment and slow-walks.\n- **Salary.** You mention the external offer too early or too often; your manager reads it as \"you're already gone\" and stops investing in retention.\n- **Annual collective bargaining.** Management starts preparing the strike-day operational plan before the round opens; the union senses the resignation and pushes harder.\n\n**Sign in retrospect.** The outcome felt like it slipped slowly over multiple rounds. You can't point to the moment it died.\n\n**Counter.** During execution, behave as if this is the only deal that matters. Set BATNA in preparation, then put it away. Reserve the backup plan for your private preparation notes.\n\n### 3. Ego\n\nPersonal investment in winning overrides the mandate. The negotiator pushes past the point where the mandate is satisfied because they want a bigger personal win.\n\n**Cross-domain examples.**\n\n- **B2B sales.** Rep pushes for multi-year up-front when annual would have closed the deal because they want the bigger ARR number on the board.\n- **Salary.** You hold for an extra $5k after a fair offer is on the table because you \"want to win,\" and the manager pulls the offer in frustration.\n- **Annual collective bargaining.** A delegate insists on a symbolic 4% headline when 3.2% with structural improvements (telework, training) is on offer and substantively worth more — because 4% is the \"winning number\" they promised membership.\n- **Internal management.** A manager refuses a report's reasonable counter-proposal on a performance plan because \"I won't be told what's reasonable by my own report\" — and the report leaves three weeks later.\n\n**Sign in retrospect.** The mandate was met; the negotiator kept pushing.\n\n**Counter.** Negotiation Pipeline (closing checklist with mandate floors). Stop the moment the mandate is satisfied. Save the over-asking for the next round.\n\n### 4. More-More Syndrome (over-asking at the moment of victory)\n\nThe counterparty says \"OK, let's do it\" and the negotiator responds with \"great, and one more thing — can we also add X, Y, and Z?\" The counterparty recoils, the agreement cracks, sometimes irretrievably.\n\n**Cross-domain examples.**\n\n- **B2B sales.** Buyer says \"let's do it\"; negotiator adds \"great, and one more thing — multi-year, reference rights, case study, MFN…\" Buyer goes silent.\n- **Salary.** Manager says \"OK, $185k base\"; you add \"and an extra week of leave, and equity refresh, and an early review.\" Manager re-engages HR, the offer gets pulled apart.\n- **Recruitment.** Candidate says \"I'm in\"; recruiter adds \"great, and let's also lock in the non-compete, the IP-assignment for prior work, and the relocation clawback.\" Candidate withdraws.\n\n**Sign in retrospect.** The counterparty agreed verbally and then went silent or backed off after the negotiator added \"just one more thing.\"\n\n**Counter.** When you hear \"yes,\" shut up. Lock the agreement at the moment of agreement. Anything you wanted to add can come at the next round (renewal, next review).\n\n### 5. Target fascination\n\nAviation analogy: pilot fixated on landing, missing safety conditions.\n\n**Cross-domain examples.**\n\n- **B2B sales.** Negotiator fixated on quarter-end close date, missing that the buyer raised a real risk in the last meeting that hasn't been resolved. Customer churns in 6 months.\n- **Salary.** You're fixated on getting \"any raise\" before the cycle locks; you accept a base bump without checking the equity refresh, title commitment, or review-cadence terms — and 6 months later you realise the package was structurally weaker than what you had.\n- **Annual collective bargaining.** CHRO fixated on closing before the strike notice deadline, signs an agreement with vague language on overtime that becomes the next round's flashpoint.\n\n**Sign in retrospect.** The outcome closed by the date, but it unravelled within 6 months because a real concern was papered over to hit the date.\n\n**Counter.** The rule from the cockpit: \"go-around\" (re-prepare) is a normal part of a successful flight. Pushing through unresolved concerns is not professionalism; it's reckless.\n\n## Lost-deal taxonomy\n\nWhen you lose, distinguish among (commercial framing — equivalents in other domains in parentheses):\n\n| Loss type | Description | Lesson |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **No-decision** | Counterparty stayed with the status quo (no deal, no raise, no agreement). | The cost of inaction wasn't built; SPIN Implication was skipped. |\n| **Lost to alternative** | They chose a competitor, an external offer, a different candidate, an alternative provider. | Differentiation problem; learn what the alternative offered. |\n| **Lost to internal build** (or self-handling) | They chose to build / handle it themselves (in-house, no external resource, family-led care). | Often an underlying stake issue (pride, control, autonomy); could a hybrid have worked? |\n| **Lost to envelope** | They wanted the agreement but the envelope didn't materialise (budget, compensation band, annual collective bargaining mandate). | Timing was off; re-engage when the next cycle opens. |\n| **Lost to mistake** | You blew it (botched discovery, missed stakeholder, wrong frame, leaked plan B). | Specific tactical lesson. The most useful losses if processed honestly. |\n| **Disqualified late** | Should have been disqualified earlier; you kept it active. | Stage gates were too lenient; pipeline / candidate / case discipline failed. |\n\nThe taxonomy matters because the corrective action is different for each. _\"We lost\"_ tells you nothing; _\"we lost to internal build because the engineering manager's career was tied to the build\"_ — or _\"the candidate accepted a counter-offer because they only needed to threaten leaving to get fairness\"_ — tells you exactly what to change next round.\n\n## Win/loss interview template — what to ask the counterparty\n\nRun this 2–4 weeks after the decision (won or lost). Ask the **non-champion** stakeholder if possible — your champion will protect the relationship and soften the truth.\n\nThe structure (adapt language to domain — buyer / candidate / employee / counterpart):\n\n**Context.**\n\n1. _\"Walk me through how the decision actually got made — who was involved, what was the sequence?\"_\n2. _\"What was the most contentious moment in the decision?\"_\n\n**About us / our process.**\n\n1. _\"What were the strongest and weakest parts of how we approached this?\"_\n2. _\"What would you have wanted to know earlier that you didn't get from us?\"_\n3. _\"If you were running our side, what would you change about how we engaged?\"_\n\n**About the alternative.**\n\n1. _\"What did [the chosen alternative / status quo] have that we didn't?\"_\n2. _\"What was the moment we lost (or won) this?\"_\n\n**For lost outcomes only.**\n\n1. _\"What would have to change for us to be a credible option in 12 months?\"_\n\n**For won outcomes only.**\n\n1. _\"What was the one thing that tipped this from 'maybe' to 'yes'?\"_\n2. _\"What concerned you most that you didn't tell us?\"_\n\nThe 30 minutes of counterparty feedback is worth more than 5 hours of internal post-mortem. Get it.\n\n## What to do with the debrief output\n\nThe debrief is only valuable if it changes the next outcome. Lightweight discipline:\n\n- **Personal level.** Each negotiator keeps a 1-page running list of patterns: top 3 mistakes, top 3 winning moves, things to try next round.\n- **Team level.** A monthly 30-minute team review of debriefs across recent outcomes. Look for repeating patterns — the same closing pathology hitting multiple cases = team-level capability gap.\n- **Organisation level.** Update the playbook (scripts, redline library, calibrated-question library, manager-conversation templates) with patterns that recur.\n\nNegotiators who debrief 5 outcomes per quarter improve faster than negotiators who close 5 outcomes per quarter without reflection. The compounding is real.\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/manipulation.md\n\n# Manipulation — taxonomy and counter-protocols\n\nAnyone running high-stakes negotiations is a target for manipulation more often than they realise. Procurement is trained, union delegates rotate tactics, aggressive candidates cycle through moves, and even non-professional counterparties learn the patterns by osmosis. This file names the 10 manipulation patterns recurrent across negotiation traditions, with detection signals and counter-responses that don't escalate.\n\nThe line — see [references/biases-and-influence.md](biases-and-influence.md#the-line--influence-vs-manipulation). Influence acts on the counterparty while preserving free will. Manipulation strips it via coercion, deceit, or emotional hijack. The negotiator who wins by manipulation poisons the well for renewal, expansion, trust, and word-of-mouth.\n\n## The 10 patterns\n\nFor each: the tell, why it works on average negotiators, and the response that neither escalates nor concedes.\n\n### 1. Bad faith\n\n**Tell.** A verifiably false claim asserted with conviction. _\"Vendor X offered the same scope at half the price\"_ — but you've checked Vendor X's public pricing and the math doesn't work.\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator argues the truth, gets dragged into a \"no it isn't / yes it is\" loop, and either concedes to escape or breaks the relationship by cornering the buyer.\n\n**Response.** The full bad-faith protocol lives in [references/objections.md](objections.md#bad-faith-no): drop ego → reality principle → face-saving exit. The lighter-touch alternative is **park-it** — _\"Let me set that point aside and continue on the technical terms.\"_ Then never come back to it. Choose park-it when the relationship is fragile and confronting risks more than letting pass.\n\n### 2. Bluff\n\n**Tell.** An unverifiable assertion of capability or constraint. _\"We've already aligned internally — this is the only number we'll consider.\"_ _\"I have signed authority for $X.\"_\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator assumes the assertion is honest and concedes to a non-existent constraint.\n\n**Response.** Calibrated questions to test the substance. _\"What would help me understand the constraint? Is there context you can share about how that number was set?\"_ A real constraint survives the question with specifics; a bluff produces vague reassurance. If you suspect a bluff, behave as if it isn't binding and propose your real number — see what happens.\n\n### 3. Intimidation\n\n**Tell.** Implied negative consequences for the negotiator personally. _\"If we don't get this done by Friday, I'll have to escalate to your CRO.\"_ _\"I'll mention this in our partnership review.\"_\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator feels their personal reputation or career is on the line and concedes to protect themselves rather than the organisation.\n\n**Response.** Maintain emotional control. Verbalise the underlying concern, not the threat. _\"It seems like the timing is creating real pressure on your side. Help me understand the deadline so we can think through it together.\"_ Refuse to engage with the personal frame; redirect to the SCO (Shared Common Objective — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#sco--shared-common-objective)).\n\n### 4. Punching-ball (verbal harassment)\n\n**Tell.** Sustained aggressive tone, personal critique, escalating volume, refusal to listen. The buyer is \"testing\" you by making the conversation unpleasant.\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator loses cognitive bandwidth, makes errors, or concedes just to escape the discomfort.\n\n**Response.** This is a **non-negotiable** behaviour — see [references/objections.md](objections.md#the-non-negotiable). _\"I hear that you're under pressure. The tone won't help us reach a deal — and I won't be useful to you if we continue this way. Let's pause for ten minutes and come back to it.\"_ Then call a tactical pause — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#tactical-pause--the-strategic-break). If the behaviour continues on resumption, end the meeting.\n\n### 5. Faux pivot (false-pivot diversion)\n\n**Tell.** Disproportionate emotional energy on a secondary axis to extract concessions on the primary one. The buyer fights for 12 hours over a $5K services line, then \"trades\" their hard-won principle on services for $50K off licence.\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator, exhausted by the fight on the secondary axis, reflexively reciprocates on the primary one.\n\n**Response.** Map every concession against your Mandascan **before** trading. The contrepartie has to match the actual axis value, not the energy spent fighting for it. _\"I appreciate the time we've put into the services scope. Before we move to licence, let me check what trade structure makes sense given where we are on each axis.\"_\n\n### 6. Feigned Indifference\n\n**Tell.** Sudden coolness from a previously engaged buyer. Slow email replies. _\"We're evaluating other options\"_ without specifics. The buyer signals you're losing leverage to push you to concede pre-emptively.\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator panics and offers concessions to \"re-engage\" the buyer — exactly the move the tactic is designed to extract.\n\n**Response.** Don't chase. Ladder your follow-ups (Day 3 / Day 7 / Day 14) and state the current proposal stands as-is until they re-engage. The \"no-question\" framing works here: _\"Have you given up on this project?\"_ — invites a \"no\" that re-opens the conversation without you conceding anything.\n\n### 7. False Cooperation\n\n**Tell.** Early collaborative tone, SCO language, \"we're partners on this\" — then a hard switch back to extraction tactics in the closing round. The buyer used the cooperative phase to extract your information; now they pivot to competition with the asymmetric advantage.\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator, having shared more than they would have in a hostile negotiation, has no leverage left when the tactics flip.\n\n**Response.** Keep your information ladder explicit. Share what's needed for the current phase, not the full picture. If the switch happens, name it: _\"It seems we've shifted from a collaborative frame to a more transactional one — happy to work in either, but I want to be clear about which one we're in so I can adapt.\"_ Reset the contract for the new phase; don't carry forward concessions that were granted in the cooperative frame.\n\n### 8. Tactical Silence\n\n**Tell.** Buyer goes radio-silent at a critical moment — between proposal and signature, or after a redline cycle. No answer for 10–14 days.\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator escalates concessions in the follow-up emails (\"happy to revisit pricing if helpful\") to break the silence — concessions the buyer didn't ask for.\n\n**Response.** Don't fill the silence with concessions. Use the **negative reverse**: _\"I haven't heard back — I want to make sure I'm not assuming something. Should I close the opportunity for now?\"_ This invites a \"no\" that breaks the silence, and if the answer is \"yes, close it,\" you've saved months of misallocated effort. See [references/objections.md](objections.md#late-stage-stall--ghosting).\n\n### 9. Defeatism Induction\n\n**Tell.** Persistent suggestions that the deal is unwinnable. _\"Honestly, we're probably not going to do this.\"_ _\"Other vendors are more established.\"_ _\"The CFO already signalled no.\"_\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator concludes the deal is dead and either disengages or makes a desperate concession to revive it.\n\n**Response.** Treat the claim as data, not truth. Test it: _\"What would have to be true for this to become winnable?\"_ A real dead deal cannot answer; a tactical defeatism move produces a list. The list IS the path forward.\n\n### 10. Closing Manipulation\n\n**Tell.** A new, undisclosed condition appears at signature — a side letter, an MFN clause buried in the redlines, an acceleration trigger, an extra licence for a sister entity. _\"Just one more thing — we'll need this added before signing.\"_\n\n**Why it works.** The negotiator has mentally booked the deal, has internal pressure to close, and concedes to avoid re-opening.\n\n**Response.** Always run a **wrap-up / back-brief** before signature — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#back-brief-and-wrap-up). Have the buyer reformulate every key term in their own words. New asks at signature are an explicit signal to delay: _\"Adding that changes the deal structure. Let me take it back internally and come back to you with what's possible.\"_ The buyer's urgency is your leverage in this round; trade it.\n\n## Detection summary — the four tells\n\nThe patterns above share four recurring tells. Watch for any of them.\n\n1. **Disproportionate emotional energy** vs the substantive stake — punching-ball, faux pivot, defeatism induction.\n2. **Unverifiable specificity** — bluff, bad faith, fake competing bid, fake budget claims.\n3. **Sudden state change** — feigned indifference, false cooperation switch, last-minute closing additions.\n4. **Personal address shift** — intimidation, defeatism induction, \"you don't get it\" identity attacks.\n\nWhen you detect one or more, **slow the conversation down**. Tactical pause, calibrated questions, no immediate concessions. Manipulation depends on speed and the negotiator's internal urgency. Removing both removes the leverage.\n\n## What manipulation costs the buyer (relationship-level)\n\nThe negotiator who absorbs manipulation silently teaches the buyer that the moves work. Same buyer, next renewal, more aggressive. The negotiator who names the move (without escalation) and refuses to be moved by it teaches the buyer to negotiate honestly with this negotiator — and often becomes the buyer's preferred counterparty over time, because honest negotiation is faster, less exhausting, and produces deals that hold.\n\nThe discipline isn't moralism. It's that manipulation is technically inferior to honest negotiation over a multi-deal horizon. The negotiators who resist manipulation cleanly are the same negotiators who lead the leaderboard at year 5.\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/memory.md\n\n# Negotiation Memory System\n\nA negotiation rarely closes in one session. Between sessions — switching tools, losing context, resuming days or weeks later — the accumulated intelligence evaporates and you re-explain everything from scratch. The memory system is a structured set of markdown files that persist across sessions and let you resume exactly where you left off.\n\n## The memory system is always flat markdown files\n\nThe memory lives in a directory of plain markdown files — `negotiation-{slug}/` — regardless of tool or platform. This is the source of truth. What varies across platforms is only **how those files are read, written, and surfaced between sessions**.\n\n## Naming convention\n\nAll memory files share a **slug**: a short, lowercase, hyphenated identifier for the negotiation (e.g. `acme-renewal`, `q3-salary`, `nao-2026`). The directory is always named `negotiation-{slug}/` and the files inside always use short names (`memory.md`, `context.md`, etc.).\n\n## Platform detection — how to access the files\n\nDetect what's available and use the best method for reading and writing the flat files.\n\n| Priority | Access method | Cross-session? | How |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 1 | **Agent with file write access** (Claude Code, Codex, etc.) | ✅ Yes | Write directly to `negotiation-{slug}/` in the repo or workspace. Read them back at the start of the next session. |\n| 2 | **Obsidian MCP** (if available) | ✅ Yes | Write the flat files into the Obsidian vault at `negotiations/negotiation-{slug}/`. Obsidian indexes and links them automatically — the files remain plain markdown, Obsidian is just the viewer. |\n| 3 | **Claude (claude.ai) — within a Project** | ⚠️ Partial | Create one Artifact per file (markdown type). Artifacts in a Project persist across conversations. Title each artifact `negotiation-{slug}-{file}` (e.g. `negotiation-acme-renewal-memory`). |\n| 4 | **Claude (claude.ai) — no Project / ChatGPT Canvas** | ❌ Per-conversation | Create one Artifact or Canvas per file within the session. **Warn the user at session end**: _\"These don't persist across new conversations — copy each file's content and save it locally, or paste them at the start of the next session.\"_ |\n| 5 | **Any other tool** | ❌ Manual | Output the markdown files as text blocks. The user saves them locally and pastes them into context at the next session start. |\n\n**Obsidian as a format layer.** When Obsidian MCP is available, the flat files are written to the vault unchanged. Obsidian adds backlinks, graph view, and search on top — useful for mapping stakeholder relationships across a long negotiation — but the files themselves stay plain markdown. Any agent can read them without Obsidian.\n\n## Default structure\n\n```\nnegotiation-{slug}/\n  memory.md       ← entrypoint: status, index, load order, structure definition — READ THIS FIRST\n  context.md      ← situation, parties, mandate (Mandascan)\n  stakeholders.md ← org map, influence map, MICE, POS per person\n  numbers.md      ← all quantitative data: offers, amounts, volumes, changes over time\n  log.md          ← session-by-session append-only event log\n  strategy.md     ← decisions made, rationale, next session plan\n```\n\nSix files is the default. **The structure may be adapted** — if the negotiation is simple, merge files; if it's complex, add domain-specific files. Whatever structure is used, it must be declared in `memory.md` under a `## Structure` section so any agent can discover it. Never rely on assumed structure — always read `memory.md` first.\n\n## Taking initiative\n\nDon't wait to be asked. Proactively:\n\n- **Create the memory** at the end of the first substantive session, even if the user didn't ask for it. Announce what you created and where to find it.\n- **Update the memory** after any significant event mid-session — a new offer, a stakeholder revealed, a concession, a mindset shift. Don't wait until session end.\n- **Flag when something important is missing** — if `numbers.md` has no figures but prices were discussed, say so. If a stakeholder was named but isn't on the map, add them immediately.\n- **Propose structure improvements** when the negotiation evolves — if a new workstream opens (e.g. a parallel legal track), suggest adding a file for it and declare it in `memory.md`.\n- **Warn proactively** when a Mandascan axis approaches Escalation or Rupture — put a `⚠️ Warning` in `memory.md` even if the user hasn't asked.\n\n## Load policy\n\nAt the start of every session, read `memory.md` first — it contains the current status and tells you which other files to load. Never skip it.\n\n| File | Load when |\n| --- | --- |\n| `memory.md` | **Always, first.** Before Phase 1 intake. |\n| `context.md` | Every session — mandate and situation overview. |\n| `strategy.md` | Every session — current strategy and next session plan. |\n| `numbers.md` | When any offer, amount, or figure is discussed. |\n| `stakeholders.md` | When discussing who's involved, motivations, or influence. |\n| `log.md` | When the user asks \"what happened in the last session\" or needs to trace a pattern back. |\n\n## When to create\n\nCreate the full directory at the end of the **first substantive session** — after Phase 1 intake at minimum, ideally after Phases 1–3. Don't wait until the negotiation is complete; the value is in continuity across rounds.\n\n## When to update\n\n- **End of every session** — update `log.md`, update `strategy.md` (next session section), update `numbers.md` if any figures moved.\n- **After any significant event** — new offer, new stakeholder revealed, deadline introduced, concession made.\n- **When the counterparty's mindset shifts** — log it in `stakeholders.md` (mindset shifts section) immediately. Shifts are the most valuable signal and the most easily forgotten.\n\n---\n\n## Templates\n\n### `memory.md` — entrypoint\n\n```markdown\n# negotiation-{slug} — memory\n\n> Stage: [early / mid / late / post-verbal-yes] · Last updated: [YYYY-MM-DD] · Session [N]\n\n## Status\n\n[1–3 sentences on where the negotiation stands right now. Write it for someone reading cold.]\n\n## Structure\n\n_List every file in use for this negotiation. If the default structure was adapted (files merged, renamed, or added), document it here. Any agent resuming this negotiation must read this section to discover the actual file set._\n\n| File            | Contents                      | Last updated |\n| --------------- | ----------------------------- | ------------ |\n| memory.md       | This entrypoint               | [date]       |\n| context.md      | Situation, parties, mandate   | [date]       |\n| stakeholders.md | Org map, MICE, POS            | [date]       |\n| numbers.md      | All figures, offers, movement | [date]       |\n| log.md          | Session log                   | [date]       |\n| strategy.md     | Decisions + next session plan | [date]       |\n\n_Artifact/Canvas title for each file: `negotiation-{slug}-{file}` (e.g. `negotiation-acme-renewal-memory`)._\n\n## Load order this session\n\n1. This file ✓\n2. context.md — mandate check\n3. strategy.md — pick up from last session's plan\n4. [numbers.md / stakeholders.md / log.md as needed]\n\n## Warnings\n\n_⚠️ Flags that must not be forgotten: mandate approaching Escalation or Rupture, counterparty deadlines, political risks, commitments made that constrain the next move. Update this section immediately when a warning emerges — don't wait._\n\n[no warnings yet]\n```\n\n---\n\n### `context.md` — situation and mandate\n\n```markdown\n# negotiation-{slug} — context\n\n## Situation\n\n- **Type:** [B2B sales / Salary / Annual collective bargaining / Internal / Recruitment / Cross-cultural]\n- **Our side:** [name(s), role(s), authority level]\n- **Counterparty:** [name(s), company, role(s)]\n- **Stakes:** [size, scope, who's affected]\n- **Target close:** [date or trigger]\n- **Current stage:** [early / mid / late / post-verbal-yes]\n\n## Mandate (Mandascan)\n\n_Update cells as the negotiation evolves. Strike through ~~old values~~ when a concession is made._\n\n| Axis | Entry | Ideal | Objective | Escalation | Rupture | Current position |\n| ---- | ----- | ----- | --------- | ---------- | ------- | ---------------- |\n|      |       |       |           |            |         |                  |\n\n## BATNA\n\n- **Ours:** [best alternative if no deal]\n- **Theirs (estimated):** [their likely fallback]\n\n## Search history\n\n_Updated at the end of every deep research run. Used in subsequent sessions to skip already-covered sources and restrict date filters to documents newer than the last search date._\n\n| Source | Last searched | Coverage notes |\n| ------ | ------------- | -------------- |\n|        | YYYY-MM-DD    |                |\n```\n\n---\n\n### `stakeholders.md` — people and influence\n\n```markdown\n# negotiation-{slug} — stakeholders\n\n## Org map\n\n| Name | Title | Reports to | Role in this deal | Champion / Neutral / Blocker | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n## Informal influence\n\n[Who actually influences whom. Who do people glance at before answering. Who's off-stage but shapes the outcome.]\n\n## MICE per stakeholder\n\n| Name | M (money) | I (ideology) | C (compromise) | E (ego) | Primary driver | Source | Confidence |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0–10 |\n\n## POS per stakeholder\n\n_Format: **[Name]** — Position: … · Objective: … · Stake (inferred): … · Source: … · Confidence: 0–10_\n\n## Mindset & position shifts\n\n_Chronological. What changed, what triggered it._\n\n- [YYYY-MM-DD] [Name] — [shift and trigger]\n```\n\n---\n\n### `numbers.md` — all figures\n\n```markdown\n# negotiation-{slug} — numbers\n\n_Every figure that has appeared in this negotiation. Track movement over time — the direction and speed of movement is as important as the current number._\n\n## Our positions (history)\n\n| Axis | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session N | Current |\n| ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- |\n|      |           |           |           |         |\n\n## Their positions (history)\n\n| Axis | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session N | Current |\n| ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- |\n|      |           |           |           |         |\n\n## Offers table\n\n| Date | From | Axis | Value | Response | Source | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  | Accepted / Rejected / Countered / Pending |  |  |\n\n## Key figures\n\n_Amounts, volumes, headcounts, dates, percentages that matter beyond offers._\n\n| Label                    | Value | Source | Date confirmed |\n| ------------------------ | ----- | ------ | -------------- |\n| Contract ACV             |       |        |                |\n| Total deal value         |       |        |                |\n| Budget envelope (stated) |       |        |                |\n| Their fiscal year end    |       |        |                |\n| Our cost-to-serve        |       |        |                |\n\n## Movement analysis\n\n_As the negotiation progresses, track: how fast is each side moving? Who is making larger concessions? Which axes are stuck?_\n\n- [YYYY-MM-DD] — [observation about movement pattern]\n```\n\n---\n\n### `log.md` — session log\n\n```markdown\n# negotiation-{slug} — log\n\n_Append-only. Add a new section after each session. Never edit past entries._\n\n---\n\n## Session [N] — [YYYY-MM-DD]\n\n**Participants:** [who was in the room on each side]  \n**Format:** [in-person / video / phone / async]  \n**Duration:** [approx]\n\n**What happened:**  \n[Chronological summary of key events. Offers made, objections raised, information exchanged.]\n\n**What moved:**  \n[What changed from the previous session — positions, relationships, information.]\n\n**What didn't move:**  \n[What stayed stuck and any observable reason.]\n\n**Tactics used and outcome:**\n\n- [tactic] → [response / effect]\n\n**Counterparty behaviour:**  \n[Tone, body language, evasiveness, specific phrases that stood out.]\n\n**Surprises:**  \n[Anything that wasn't anticipated. A new stakeholder, a new constraint, a shift in tone.]\n\n**Open at end of session:**  \n[Unresolved items, pending answers, next move expected from each side.]\n```\n\n---\n\n### `strategy.md` — decisions and next session\n\n```markdown\n# negotiation-{slug} — strategy\n\n## Decisions log\n\n_Key strategic choices — what was decided, why, and what it rules out._\n\n- [YYYY-MM-DD] — [Decision] — [Rationale]\n\n## Wins & failures\n\n**Worked:**\n\n- [tactic or move] — [what it produced]\n\n**Backfired:**\n\n- [tactic or move] — [what went wrong and why]\n\n## Next session plan\n\n> _Write this at the end of each session. It's the briefing note for your future self — or for a colleague taking over cold._\n\n- **Planned opening move:** [specific — what you'll say or do first]\n- **Top calibrated questions to ask:** [3–5 specific \"what\" / \"how\" questions]\n- **Concession ready to trade:** [what you'll offer + what you'll ask in return]\n- **Pre-emptive labels to deploy:** [accusation-audit lines for the most likely objections]\n- **Mandate check:** [any axis closer to Escalation or Rupture than last session?]\n- **Information to gather before session:** [research, internal validation, intel]\n- **Warning flags:** [things to watch for — manipulation patterns, deadline traps, JOLT signals]\n```\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/objections.md\n\n# Objections\n\n<!-- toc: refusal-triage | four-root | jolt | ghosting | procurement | the-non-negotiable | face-saving -->\n\n## Refusal triage\n\nFive types of \"no\" and how to recognise each.\n\n### Emotional \"no\"\n\n**Signal.** Visible micro-expressions of fear, anger, sadness, surprise. Voice change. Body language shift (leaning back, crossed arms, broken eye contact). Buyer is reactive, not analytical.\n\n**Why it happens.** The limbic brain is roughly 10× faster than the cortex. The buyer can't reason their way through fear or anger in real-time. Logical responses bounce off because the cortex isn't online to process them.\n\n**Response.** Verbalise the emotion first. Wait. Then move to facts.\n\n_\"It seems like the timing is making this stressful?\"_\n\n(Pause. Let them respond. If they confirm, the heat drops.)\n\n_\"Tell me what's driving the timing pressure.\"_\n\n(Listen. Then propose.)\n\nThe \"emotion before facts\" rule is the single most-violated discipline in objection handling. Reps default to logical refutation; logical refutation produces escalation when the buyer is emotional.\n\n### Belief-based \"no\"\n\n**Signal.** Calm. Articulated. Value-grounded. The buyer can explain why they're saying no, in their own framework, coherently.\n\n**Why it happens.** They actually believe what they're saying. Usually grounded in past experience (\"I had a vendor lock-in three years ago and won't risk it again\"), industry conviction, or identity (\"we're a build-not-buy shop\").\n\n**Response.** Don't refute the belief. Your reference frame is not theirs, and arguing the belief produces dug-in trenches. Find the **underlying stake** hiding behind the belief.\n\nB2B sales translation: a buyer says _\"we're a build-not-buy shop.\"_ Don't argue. Surface the underlying stake — usually engineering pride, control, fear of vendor dependence, or career capital tied to the in-house team. Then find an offering shape that satisfies the stake (a hybrid model, an open-source tier, a \"you build the wrapper, we provide the core\" structure).\n\nSalary translation: a manager says _\"we don't give raises mid-cycle on principle.\"_ Don't argue the principle. Surface the underlying stake — usually a precedent worry, fairness perception across the team, or budget signalling to their own boss. Find a structure that addresses the stake (one-off retention bonus instead of base raise, a delayed but committed cycle-aligned raise, a scope/title change that justifies an exception) without crossing the principle.\n\n### Bad-faith \"no\"\n\n**Signal.** The buyer makes a verifiably false claim and refuses to admit it even when shown evidence. _\"My competitor offered this for half the price.\"_ — but you know the competitor's list price and the math doesn't work.\n\n**Why it happens.** Procurement training. Sometimes ego. Sometimes they're parroting an internal directive they don't fully believe themselves.\n\n**Response — bad-faith protocol (three core steps + an alternative move):**\n\n1. **Drop your ego.** Do not engage with the false claim itself. Do not get into a \"no it isn't / yes it is\" loop. Your goal is not to win the truth contest; it's to move the deal.\n2. **Present the reality principle.** State the facts cleanly, without judgement. _\"Our list is $X. Vendor Y's list is $Z. I'm sure there's a way you saw a different number — maybe a different SKU or a different volume tier — but at the configuration we're discussing, those are the public numbers.\"_\n3. **Open a face-saving exit.** Give them a way to back out without losing face. _\"It's possible the team that gave you that number was working from older information. Want to forward me the quote and we can compare?\"_\n\nThe face-saving exit is non-negotiable. If you corner them publicly, they will dig in and the deal will die out of sheer commitment to the false position. Their face matters more than your truth in the moment.\n\n**Alternative move — the \"park-it\" technique.** When the false claim is too risky to engage even with the reality principle (e.g., procurement is using it as a wedge to test your reaction, or the relationship is fragile), park the claim entirely and move past it: _\"Let me put that point aside for now and continue on the technical terms — we can come back to it.\"_ Then never come back to it. The buyer often won't either, because re-raising the false claim re-opens the discomfort. Use this when confronting the lie risks breaking the relationship more than letting it pass; reserve the three-step protocol for cases where the claim has to be neutralized factually before progress is possible.\n\n### Identity-protective \"no\"\n\n**Signal.** Aggression. Theatrics. _\"You don't understand our business / our scale / our culture.\"_ Withdrawal. The buyer is asserting that they still control something, often because the negotiation is touching their sense of agency or competence.\n\n**Why it happens.** The negotiation is being read as an identity threat. Especially common with senior buyers who feel they're being \"sold to\" rather than \"sold with.\"\n\n**Response.** Hand back a controllable scope. Negotiate on form, not substance.\n\nB2B translation: when an enterprise buyer pushes back hard on the proposal as a whole, often what they actually need is to control the **form** of the engagement (kickoff structure, named team members, escalation protocols) even when the **substance** (price, scope, terms) is settled. Hand them control of the form and the substance lands.\n\n### Tactical \"no\"\n\n**Signal.** Procurement playbook moves. Time pressure that doesn't trace to a real consequence. \"Our budget is X.\" Multiple authority figures extracting serial concessions.\n\n**Response.** Name the pattern. Trade, never give. See [Procurement playbook awareness](#procurement-playbook-awareness).\n\n---\n\n## The four root commercial objections\n\nAlmost all commercial objections reduce to one of four. Knowing which root you're facing tells you which calibrated question to ask first. (Equivalents in salary / annual collective bargaining domains noted at the end of this section.)\n\n### 1. Price\n\n**Common surface form.** _\"It's too expensive.\"_ / _\"We're 30% over budget.\"_ / _\"Your competitor is half the price.\"_\n\n**Don't immediately defend the price.** Three calibrated questions to surface the real concern:\n\n- _\"How was that budget number set?\"_ (often reveals the budget is flexible)\n- _\"What does the alternative offer that we don't?\"_ (forces specificity on competitor claims; fake competitors generate platitudes, real ones generate specifics)\n- _\"If price weren't a factor, would you be choosing us?\"_ (separates price from fit; if the answer is no, price was a smokescreen for a different objection)\n\n**Then trade, don't discount.** _\"I might be able to find some flexibility on price if we can align on multi-year term and reference rights. Let me explore — what would help most on your side: lower upfront, or lower total?\"_\n\n**When the same objection repeats across 3+ calls** — especially price or budget — it is almost never the actual reason. The buyer's stated demand (the **position**) is masking a deeper **stake** (career stake, board mandate, internal political risk, fear of being held responsible if it goes wrong). See the POS iceberg (Position / Objective / Stake) in [references/prepare.md](prepare.md#pos--position--objective--stake). The right next move is not another budget play — it's a calibrated question to your champion targeting their personal stake: _\"What's at stake for you personally if this works — or doesn't?\"_ The repeated objection won't be solved by re-pitching value; it'll be solved by addressing whatever is making the champion unable to push internally.\n\n### 2. Timing\n\n**Common surface form.** _\"Not now.\"_ / _\"Maybe next quarter.\"_ / _\"We're in the middle of a reorg.\"_\n\n**The trap.** Most timing objections are real. Some are smokescreens for \"no need\" or \"no authority.\" Diagnose first.\n\n- _\"What happens if we miss [their stated date]?\"_ — real deadlines have specific consequences; smokescreens don't.\n- _\"Walk me through what changes between now and Q1 that would make this the right time.\"_ — real waits have specific upcoming events; smokescreens don't.\n- _\"What would have to be true for us to start now and ramp slowly?\"_ — opens the door to a smaller-footprint deal that bypasses the timing concern.\n\n**If real timing.** Don't fight it. Lock in the future commitment. Use the time to deepen MEDDPICC, multi-thread, and harden the champion.\n\n### 3. Authority\n\n**Common surface form.** _\"I'd love to do this but I need to check with [my boss / procurement / security / legal].\"_\n\n**The diagnostic.** Distinguish:\n\n- **Real authority gap** — they don't have spend authority. You've been talking to a non-decision-maker. Multi-thread now.\n- **Tactical \"I need to check\"** — the escalation ladder gambit (see procurement awareness below). Concession #1 from your contact, then \"my boss won't approve, needs another N%.\"\n\nCalibrated questions:\n\n- _\"Walk me through how a decision like this typically gets made here.\"_\n- _\"Who specifically needs to weigh in?\"_\n- _\"What's happened the last time you bought something like this?\"_\n\nIf they can answer these crisply, the authority gap is real and you have a multi-threading problem. If they can't, the \"authority gap\" is often tactical and you should name the pattern.\n\n### 4. No need\n\n**Common surface form.** _\"We're managing fine with our current setup.\"_ / _\"This isn't a priority right now.\"_\n\n**The trap.** This is the hardest objection because it's often the truth. You can't sell into \"no need\" by force; you can only build the cost of inaction until \"managing fine\" feels like \"bleeding slowly.\"\n\nSPIN's Implication questions:\n\n- _\"What happens to your billing accuracy when [the controller / the system] is unavailable?\"_\n- _\"What does the current setup cost you per quarter when it fails?\"_\n- _\"What's the upside if this were 10× better than today?\"_\n\nIf after this the buyer still says \"no need,\" respect the no. They're right and you're forcing it. Walk away — and watch them quietly come back in 6 months when the cost compounds.\n\n### Cross-domain equivalents of the four root objections\n\nThe same four roots appear in other domains under different surface forms. The diagnostic move is the same — calibrated question first, response after.\n\n| Domain | Price equivalent | Timing equivalent | Authority equivalent | No-need equivalent |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Salary** | \"We're at the top of the band\" / \"envelope's closed\" | \"We'll revisit at the next review\" | \"I need to check with HR / my skip-level\" | \"You're tracking great where you are\" |\n| **Annual collective bargaining / social** | \"The wage envelope is fixed by the ExCo\" | \"Let's defer to next round / next year\" | \"We can't decide that here, it's federation-level\" | \"Things are stable, no need to renegotiate now\" |\n| **Internal management** | \"I don't have the headcount / promotion budget\" | \"Let's revisit at the next cycle\" | \"I'd need to escalate to my N+1 / HR\" | \"You're doing fine, no change needed\" |\n| **Recruitment** | \"Your compensation expectation is above our band\" | \"We're not hiring this quarter\" | \"I need to validate with the hiring committee\" | \"We're not sure we need this role yet\" |\n\nThe diagnostic questions translate directly. _\"How was that number set?\"_ becomes _\"How was the band set?\"_ in salary, _\"How was the wage envelope sized?\"_ in annual collective bargaining. _\"What happens if we miss [date]?\"_ works unchanged across all domains. _\"Walk me through how a decision like this typically gets made here?\"_ is the universal authority diagnostic.\n\n---\n\n## The \"no decision\" trap (JOLT)\n\nDistinct from the four root objections: the buyer is engaged but can't commit — typically because the personal career risk of buying exceeds the ambient cost of staying still (FOMU, not FOMO). Classic urgency tactics make it worse.\n\n**When to use:** buyer says yes to capability, no to commitment. Deal stalls without a substantive new objection. Apply JOLT before discounting or adding urgency pressure.\n\nFull runbook (Judge / Offer / Limit / Take risk off) → [playbooks.md#jolt](playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol).\n\n---\n\n## Late-stage stall / ghosting\n\nThe buyer goes radio-silent at late stage — between proposal and signature, or after a redline cycle. No reply for 10–14 days.\n\nThe instinct: chase with concessions to break the silence. The instinct is wrong — the silence may be tactical (pressure for concessions) or genuine (internal change), and concession-chasing rewards the tactical version.\n\n**Diagnostic sequence:**\n\n1. **Calibrated re-engagement** — Day 7: a single short email re-stating the value summary, no concession. _\"Wanted to keep the value summary fresh in mind as the team works through the internal review — happy to support if a question comes up.\"_\n2. **Negative reverse** — Day 12–14, if no reply: see [Negative reverse](#negative-reverse--for-ghosted-deals) below.\n3. **Champion check** — Day 17, if negative reverse produced no reply: contact the champion via a different channel (LinkedIn DM, mutual connection). The champion's silence is the signal — usually means internal change you weren't told about.\n4. **EB escalation** — Day 21+, if you've earned the right (see [playbooks.md#eb-engagement](playbooks.md#executive-sponsor-eb-engagement--the-5-minute-opening)): contact the EB directly with a 1-paragraph status note. Last resort.\n\n**Anti-pattern.** Sending repeated soft chase emails (\"just checking in,\" \"circling back\") teaches the buyer that silence is rewarded with continued seller attention. Ladder cleanly and stop.\n\n---\n\n## Procurement playbook awareness\n\nWhat enterprise procurement teams are trained to do. Not paranoia — just awareness. Sellers who don't know these patterns walk into them blind.\n\n### The escalation ladder\n\nClassic three-bite play:\n\n1. Primary contact extracts concession #1.\n2. _\"Procurement won't approve this; we need another N%.\"_\n3. _\"CFO says we're outside acceptable range; final ask is X.\"_\n\n**Counter.** Name it: _\"We've discussed pricing twice already. I'd love to understand who has the final authority so we can have one conversation rather than three.\"_ Anchor each concession to a trade. Refuse incremental discounts without reopening scope.\n\n### The fixed-budget claim\n\n_\"Our budget is $X, that's all we have.\"_ Treated as objective constraint by sellers. Reality: budgets are flexible, staged, often understated.\n\n**Counter.** _\"How was that number set?\"_ / _\"What would unlock additional budget for the right outcome?\"_ Both are calibrated, both surface that the budget is not a hard wall.\n\n### Fake competing bid\n\nThe \"stalking horse\" play. Procurement keeps a real or fictitious competitor alive to maintain leverage.\n\n**Counter.** Diagnose with _\"What does the alternative offer that we don't?\"_ and _\"Help me understand what's keeping us in the conversation.\"_ Real competitors generate specific differentiator answers; fake ones generate platitudes. If you suspect a fake, focus on differentiation that's genuinely hard to replicate (your product, not your price).\n\n### Free pilot / POC\n\nProcurement frames pilots as \"low-risk evaluation\" but uses them to: anchor pilot pricing as the new baseline, defer commitment indefinitely, extract product knowledge without a contract.\n\n**Counter.** Paid pilots only, scope-locked, with a **pre-agreed conversion clause** (date, price, term). Pilot pricing tied to full-contract pricing, not standalone.\n\n### Fiscal-year leverage\n\nBuyers research vendor fiscal calendars and time final negotiations to vendor Q4 or FY-end. Saved value: 20–40% of contract when timed and prepared.\n\n**Counter.** Don't hide your urgency — **trade** it. _\"If we close by Friday, I can offer Q4 pricing on a multi-year term with reference rights. If we slip to next quarter, the math changes.\"_ Your urgency is real; the discipline is to not let it become the buyer's lever.\n\n### MSA redline tactics\n\nBuyer drafts the MSA on **their paper** to anchor terms. Procurement and legal cycles drag 1–3 months. Standard target redlines: data security, uncapped breach liability, sandbox rights, affiliate use, change-control on service capabilities, exit / data portability, price-cap clauses, no auto-renewal.\n\n**Counter.** Pre-approved redline library — common modifications your legal team has signed off on, so the negotiator can agree without a 2-week legal queue. Send your MSA first when possible.\n\n**Late-stage redline injection.** A specific procurement variant: legal redlines arrive 24–72 hours before the planned signature, often on items that weren't raised during the negotiation. The pressure to close vs the cost of renegotiating produces over-concession.\n\n_Counter script._ \"Adding new terms at signature changes the deal structure. If we hold the original signature date, the discount we agreed to comes off the table — I need the trade to justify the new terms internally. If you'd rather keep the discount, we can extend the signature date to allow proper review.\" This forces a choice — date or price — and refuses the false binary the procurement move sets up.\n\n### MFN clauses — the AE-escalation default\n\nMost-favoured-nation clauses (\"we get the best price you give any customer of similar size for the next N years\") are the most under-recognised concession AEs make. They constrain every future deal, every promo, every M&A bundling.\n\n**Default rule.** MFN clauses are NOT in the AE's signing authority. Always escalate to legal/CRO, regardless of how junior the buyer's request seems. The cost compounds across multiple future deals; what looks like a small concession in this deal becomes a multi-quarter constraint on the entire customer book.\n\n**Counter when buyer pushes.** \"MFN is one of the few clauses I can't sign — the trade-off would affect deals that don't exist yet. I can give you a different protection — a price hold for N months on this configuration if your scope grows — that achieves the underlying goal without the structural exposure.\"\n\n### Nibbling — the post-agreement small ask\n\nOnce the deal is verbally closed but before paper signature, the buyer asks for a series of small extras: an additional licence for the test environment, training included, a few extra seats for an adjacent team, a custom report. Each individually small; cumulatively expensive.\n\nWhy it works: the negotiator has mentally booked the deal and treats the asks as paperwork friction.\n\n**Counter rule.** Always trade, never gift. _\"This would normally be a $X line item. If you want it, here's what works: extend term to 36 months / add a reference / multi-year payment commit.\" Refuse to cumulate freebies even when they feel small._\n\n### Flinch — visible shock at price\n\nBuyer reacts to your price with theatrical surprise — sharp inhale, _\"that's a lot,\"_ visible recoil. The move is designed to pressure you into apologising or pre-conceding.\n\n**Counter script.** \"What were you expecting?\" Said neutrally, with no apology. This pivots the conversation from your price to **their** anchor — usually a number with no underlying basis. Often they cannot answer cleanly, which neutralises the move.\n\n### Negative reverse — for ghosted deals\n\nA counterintuitive but well-validated tactic for the radio-silent buyer at late stage: when the buyer has gone silent for 10–14 days after a clear ask, send the **opposite** of a chase email.\n\n_Script._ \"I haven't heard back, and I want to make sure I'm not assuming something that's not there. Should I close the opportunity for now, or is there something specific I should be solving for?\"\n\nThis invites a \"no\" (which the counterparty experiences as safe — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#the-power-of-no)) and produces honest signal fast. Three outcomes:\n\n- \"Yes, close it\" — saves you months of misallocated effort.\n- \"No, we're still working on it, here's what's happening\" — re-opens the conversation with new context.\n- No reply — confirms the deal is dead; move on.\n\n### Good cop / bad cop force-alignment\n\nTwo procurement contacts — one collaborative, one hostile — extracting concessions from both sides. The \"good cop\" softens you for the bad cop's hard ask.\n\n**Counter.** Name it without escalation. _\"I want to make sure I'm hearing one position. I can negotiate against one set of terms — I can't negotiate against two. Which of you should I be aligning with?\"_ Forces them to either consolidate or expose the dynamic. Either result removes the leverage.\n\n### Bogey — the false-priority diversion\n\nBuyer feigns importance on a secondary item (\"the SLA tier is non-negotiable for us\") to \"trade\" later for a real concession on the primary item (\"we can compromise on the SLA if you give us 20% on price\"). The \"trade\" looks reciprocal but isn't — the secondary item never mattered to them.\n\n**Counter.** Map every concession against your Mandascan **before** trading. The contrepartie has to match the actual axis value, not the buyer's stated emphasis. If you suspect a bogey, test: _\"Help me understand why the SLA tier is so important — what specifically would change for your team at the next tier?\"_ Real importance has specifics; bogeys produce vague reassurance.\n\n### Anchor-then-stall\n\nBuyer drops an extreme low anchor early, then goes silent for 2–3 weeks, hoping the negotiator will come back with a desperate counter-offer rather than hold the line.\n\n**Counter.** Don't move first. The anchor stays unanswered until the buyer re-engages. If they don't re-engage, they were testing your discipline — and concession would have set the new floor for the rest of the deal.\n\n### The 70/30 rule\n\nProcurement is trained to talk 30%, listen 70%. Negotiators trained to do the reverse fall into one-sided concession patterns. **Match their cadence.** Talk less. Ask more. Let them fill the silence.\n\n---\n\n## The Non-Negotiable\n\nSome behaviours must be refused immediately and explicitly, even when the underlying emotion is legitimate. Letting them pass equals tacit acceptance, which reinforces the behaviour (the law-of-effect principle: behaviours that are tolerated repeat).\n\nThe principle: **separate emotion from behaviour**. The emotion is always legitimate (\"you have every right to be frustrated\"). The behaviour might not be (\"but I won't accept being yelled at, and I won't be useful to you if we continue this way\").\n\nCross-domain examples:\n\n- **B2B sales.** Procurement officer becomes verbally abusive: _\"I hear that you're under pressure. The yelling isn't going to help us get to a deal — and I'd rather we both come back tomorrow when we can talk through this productively.\"_ Then pause. If they continue, leave the call.\n- **B2B sales.** Buyer demands a deeply unprofessional concession (kickback, lying on a reference, falsifying capability claims): refuse explicitly. _\"I can't do that. Let's see what else I can do.\"_\n- **Annual collective bargaining.** A union delegate insults a member of the management team during a session. _\"I can hear the legitimate frustration on your side, and we'll address the substance. The personal insults aren't acceptable in this room — let's pause for 20 minutes and resume only when the conditions for productive dialogue are restored.\"_ If behaviour resumes, end the session and reschedule.\n- **Internal management.** A direct report insults a colleague in front of you during a heated 1:1. _\"I understand you're frustrated about the situation, and the frustration is legitimate. The way you just spoke about [colleague] isn't acceptable, and we need to be clear about that going forward — separately from whatever else we're solving today.\"_\n- **Recruitment.** A candidate makes an offensive comment about a protected category during the final round. _\"I'm going to stop the conversation here. That comment isn't compatible with how we work, and the right outcome is for me to end this process today.\"_\n\nThe non-negotiable line is not about ego — it's about preserving the conditions for productive negotiation, mentorship, care, or trust. Negotiators who absorb abuse to \"save the outcome\" save the wrong outcome.\n\n---\n\n## Face-saving exits\n\nMost negotiations don't fail on substance — they fail on face. The buyer needs a way to change position without admitting they were wrong. Build the exit into your move.\n\nTemplates:\n\n- _\"It's possible the team that gave you that number was working from older information.\"_ (Bad-faith exit.)\n- _\"Things change between proposal and close — totally normal that the criteria evolved.\"_ (Scope-creep exit.)\n- _\"I know X was on the wishlist; if it turns out we don't need it for V1, we can revisit at renewal.\"_ (Feature-cut exit.)\n- _\"You raised this concern earlier and we've taken it seriously — here's what we changed.\"_ (Concern-validation exit even when their concern was wrong.)\n\nDon't give the exit when it's not needed — gratuitous face-saving comes across as patronising. Give it when you can see the buyer needs to back down and is looking for a way.\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/playbooks.md\n\n# Playbooks\n\n<!-- toc: jolt | multi-threading | map | eb-engagement | renewal-expansion | salary-ask | decision-announcement | cross-cultural -->\n\n## JOLT — the no-decision protocol\n\n**Trigger.** Deal stuck. Champion present. Pain validated. Solution fits. But the buyer can't get to a decision. 40–60% of pipeline that doesn't close is \"no decision,\" not lost-to-competitor.\n\n**The diagnosis:** the buyer is facing **fear of messing up** (FOMU), not fear of missing out (FOMO). Status quo = career-safe. Buying = personal risk. The classic moves (urgency, FOMO appeals, escalation) make FOMU **worse** because they amplify the perceived risk.\n\n**The four moves** (J-O-L-T):\n\n### J — Judge the indecision\n\nDistinguish indecision from disinterest. Calibrated questions:\n\n- _\"What would have to be true for you to move forward?\"_\n- _\"If I told you the deal was off, what would you feel — relief, or frustration?\"_\n\nRelief = no real fit; respect the no. Frustration = indecision, which JOLT addresses.\n\n### O — Offer your recommendation\n\nMost AEs lay out options to \"let the buyer choose.\" That **increases** indecision because it adds decision load.\n\nMake the call. _\"Based on what you've told me, I'd recommend the standard tier with the security add-on. The enterprise tier is overkill for your stage; we can revisit at renewal if the user count grows.\"_\n\nThe buyer's job is now to disagree with a specific recommendation, not to construct a decision from scratch. Indecision drops.\n\n### L — Limit the explore\n\nCap the evaluation. _\"Based on your team's capacity and the discovery we've done, I think two more meetings will get us to a decision. Beyond that, the analysis cost outweighs the differentiation between options.\"_\n\nYou're explicitly removing the option to keep evaluating forever — which is what FOMU defaults to.\n\n### T — Take risk off the table\n\nSpecific risk-reduction asks the buyer hasn't articulated:\n\n- **Pilot conversion clause.** \"If quarter 1 doesn't show [specific metric], you have a documented exit at no penalty.\"\n- **Migration support included.** \"We'll do the data migration ourselves at no extra cost — your team won't carry the technical risk.\"\n- **Reference call with similar customer.** Not a marketing reference — a \"tell me what went wrong\" call with a customer at the buyer's stage who chose your tool.\n\nThe risk reductions must address the **specific** FOMU. Generic \"money-back guarantees\" don't work because the FOMU isn't financial; it's career.\n\n**Failure signal.** Even with all four moves, the buyer continues to defer. The FOMU is structural (their organisation genuinely can't decide) — re-qualify and de-prioritise.\n\n---\n\n## Multi-threading sequence — from 1 contact to 4–7 stakeholders\n\n**Trigger.** You have one solid contact (champion or strong coach). The deal is real. Now you need the EB, technical evaluator, security, finance, and procurement before signature. Multi-threading without burning the champion is a precise sequence.\n\n**The \"validate with X\" move.** Frame outreach to other stakeholders as in service of the champion's success.\n\n_Script._ \"I want to make sure when we put a recommendation together, it lands the first time. It would help me to spend 20 minutes with [name] on the security side so I can speak to their concerns when we present. Are you open to a quick intro?\"\n\nThe frame: you're protecting the champion from internal pushback by anticipating it.\n\n**The CC-the-EB move.** When the EB hasn't been engaged yet but you have visibility, copy them on substantive emails (NOT discovery noise). Send a recap of a major milestone or a new piece of technical validation, addressed to the champion, CC'd to the EB. This puts your name in the EB's inbox without asking for their time.\n\n**The earned right to the EB meeting.** Don't ask for the meeting until you've earned it. Earned right = (a) named pain that maps to the EB's mandate, (b) some technical validation that the solution works for them, (c) a champion willing to vouch for your time. Typical sequence:\n\n1. Discovery with the champion → surface pain + map MEDDPICC.\n2. Technical validation call (champion + technical evaluator) → prove fit.\n3. Internal advocacy by champion (you're not in the room) → champion socialises with EB.\n4. EB meeting requested by champion or by you with champion's blessing.\n\nGoing for the EB meeting before step 3 is asking for their time without a reason for them to give it.\n\n**Champion-arms-the-deal kit.** Materials your champion should have for internal selling:\n\n- **One-pager** (their internal pitch deck slide). Their words, their problem, your solution. They send this to the EB.\n- **Business case template** (with assumptions they fill in). Do NOT pre-fill the numbers — let them own the model so they own the close.\n- **Objection FAQ** (procurement, security, finance). What internal stakeholders will ask, and the 1-paragraph answer.\n- **Comparison sheet** (you vs status quo / you vs competitor). Honest about the trade-offs — champions distrust over-claimed comparisons.\n\n**Failure signal.** The champion refuses to introduce you to the EB despite a clean ask. Either they don't have the political capital (build it), they're not actually pro-deal (re-qualify), or they're protecting their gatekeeper position (an underlying stake issue — surface it directly).\n\n---\n\n## Mutual Action Plan (MAP) — the close timeline as artifact\n\n**Trigger.** Late discovery, after you've validated MEDDPICC has the C (champion) and you can sketch the Decision Process. Often round 2–3 of substantive conversations.\n\n**Why a MAP works.** The MAP is the negotiation's commitment device. Two effects:\n\n- **Surfaces hidden steps.** \"We need legal\" / \"we need infosec\" / \"we need a board update\" — these are the 30-day delays that hide. The MAP forces them visible early.\n- **Creates joint ownership.** A MAP the buyer co-authors becomes their plan, not yours. They defend its dates internally.\n\n**The structure** (a single table; copy into Google Docs or Notion):\n\n| # | Milestone | Date | Owner | Dependency | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 1 | Deeper discovery (technical) | YYYY-MM-DD | Champion + your SE | — | Done |\n| 2 | Security questionnaire returned | YYYY-MM-DD | Their security lead | #1 | In flight |\n| 3 | Pricing aligned | YYYY-MM-DD | Champion + you | #1 | Pending |\n| 4 | EB business case meeting | YYYY-MM-DD | Champion + EB + you | #2, #3 | Scheduled |\n| 5 | Procurement intake | YYYY-MM-DD | Buyer procurement lead | #4 | Not started |\n| 6 | MSA redlines exchanged | YYYY-MM-DD | Both legal teams | #5 | Not started |\n| 7 | Final approvals | YYYY-MM-DD | EB + CFO | #6 | Not started |\n| 8 | Signature | YYYY-MM-DD | EB | #7 | Not started |\n| 9 | Kickoff scheduled | YYYY-MM-DD | Customer success | #8 | Not started |\n\n**How to introduce a MAP without making the buyer feel pushed.**\n\n_Script._ \"We've covered a lot of ground. To make sure I don't drop the ball on what you need from us, do you mind if I share a working timeline of what I think the next steps look like? I'd love your edits — you'll know your internal process better than I will.\"\n\nThe framing: it's for **your** discipline, you're asking them to correct **your** assumptions. Buyer ownership emerges from the corrections.\n\n**MAP stalls as diagnostics.** When a MAP stops moving, the stall is the most diagnostic data in the deal. Decode:\n\n- _Stalls between #2 and #3._ Security or pricing isn't actually validated. Surface the real concern.\n- _Stalls between #3 and #4._ Champion can't get the EB meeting → champion test failed → re-qualify or rebuild capital.\n- _Stalls between #5 and #6._ Procurement is running the playbook (escalation, fixed budget) — see [objections.md#procurement-playbook-awareness](objections.md#procurement-playbook-awareness).\n- _Stalls between #6 and #7._ Legal disagreement is real. Don't push date — push for legal-to-legal call.\n- _Stalls between #7 and #8._ Buyer signal of buyer's remorse or new objection. Diagnose with calibrated questions, not pressure.\n\n**Failure signal.** The buyer refuses to put dates on the MAP, or repeatedly defers them by 1–2 weeks each time. Either MEDDPICC is incomplete (no real Decision Process visibility) or you're being JOLT-trapped (see [JOLT](#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol)).\n\n---\n\n## Executive sponsor (EB) engagement — the 5-minute opening\n\n**Trigger.** The EB is now on the call. You have 30 minutes (often less). The first 5 minutes determine whether the meeting is productive.\n\n**What NOT to do in the first 5 minutes:**\n\n- Re-pitch the product. The EB has been told the product story by your champion; if they're in the meeting, they accept it as a starting point.\n- Walk through company background or \"who we are.\" Their time is the constraint; respect it.\n- Open with discovery questions. They'll feel sold to. Discovery happens after they've decided you're worth their attention.\n\n**The 5-minute opening structure:**\n\n1. **Acknowledge their time and the path.** _\"[Champion] has shared what's been in scope. I'd like to use the 30 minutes you've given me to confirm three things and then have your direction on whether we move forward.\"_\n2. **State the strategic frame.** Not the product — the **business problem class** in their language. _\"You're trying to take 8 days out of the close cycle without adding headcount in finance. That's the goal we're solving for.\"_\n3. **Acknowledge the trade-off.** EBs trust counterparties who acknowledge limits. _\"This isn't free — there's a 60-day implementation cost and a change-management curve for your AP team. The question is whether the payback period justifies it.\"_\n4. **Invite their question.** _\"Before I take you through what we've validated, what's the one thing you want my answer to?\"_\n\nThe ask is not \"tell me about your business.\" The ask is \"name the question the meeting must answer to be worth your time.\" The EB's answer reshapes the rest of the meeting around their actual decision criterion.\n\n**The \"earned right\" frame.** You earned this meeting through prior work. The opening signals that you take their time as a gift, not an entitlement.\n\n**Failure signal.** EB asks \"remind me what your company does?\" within the first 5 minutes. Champion didn't do their job; pivot to a fast 60-second pitch and treat the meeting as a soft re-discovery.\n\n---\n\n## Renewal & expansion — the 90-day coopetition cadence\n\n**Trigger.** 90 days before the renewal date. This is when most AEs make the most expensive mistake of the year: starting renewal conversations 30 days out, when the buyer has all the leverage.\n\n**The 90-day cadence:**\n\n### T-90 — value review (no commercial ask)\n\nSchedule a \"year-in-review\" with the champion + at least one user and one finance contact.\n\n- **Usage data.** Specific metrics — accounts onboarded, time saved, defects prevented. Numbers, not narratives.\n- **Outcomes.** Map the metrics to the original business case. Did the deployment hit the original targets?\n- **Friction points.** What's broken or could be better. Naming this honestly builds credibility for the renewal ask.\n\nNo ask in this meeting. The output is a written value summary you and the buyer agree on.\n\n### T-60 — internal stakeholder mapping\n\nMulti-thread (see [Multi-threading sequence](#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders)) BEFORE the renewal. New stakeholders since the original deal — new EB, new CFO, new procurement lead. They didn't sign the original; their priors aren't aligned with renewal.\n\nExpand the conversation by introducing your customer success executive or specialist to the new stakeholder before procurement gets involved.\n\n### T-45 — expansion proposal (separate from renewal)\n\nIf the data supports expansion (additional seats, new modules, sister entity), propose it as a **separate** track from the renewal. Why: bundling expansion into renewal lets procurement use renewal pressure to discount expansion. Separating them forces each to stand on its own merit.\n\n### T-30 — renewal commercial ask\n\nBring the renewal commercial proposal. By now, the value review is documented, multi-threading is done, and expansion is a parallel conversation.\n\nThe commercial ask is **not** \"sign the same deal again.\" It's structured:\n\n- **Renewal terms** (likely the same or modest uplift, justified).\n- **Multi-year option** (3-year locks rate; trade for usage commit and reference rights).\n- **Expansion option** (separate price, separate scope).\n\n### T-10 — escalation if needed\n\nIf procurement is grinding, the EB you multi-threaded at T-60 is now a known stakeholder you can escalate to. _\"We're inside ten days. I want to make sure your finance team has what they need; can we get on a call with [EB] to align?\"_\n\n**Anti-pattern: auto-renew and expand later.** Easy in the moment but compounds badly. The expansion conversation against an already-renewed customer has none of the renewal-pressure leverage. Procurement extracts more on the expansion than they would have at renewal.\n\n**Failure signal.** Champion goes cold at T-60. Either internal change (reorganisation, departure) or status quo bias is now working against you. Diagnose immediately — by T-30 it's too late.\n\n---\n\n## Salary ask — the structured raise / offer conversation\n\n**Trigger.** You're asking for a raise (mid-cycle or annual) or negotiating a fresh offer above the recruiter's first number.\n\n**Pre-conversation preparation:**\n\n- **Market data.** Pull from at least 3 sources (industry surveys, public salary databases, peers you trust). Bring 2–3 specific data points to the conversation.\n- **Multi-axis Mandascan.** Don't negotiate base alone. Sketch your 5 points across base, variable, equity, sign-on, leave/training, title, scope, review cadence.\n- **Anchor range.** Use a bolstering range whose bottom is your real target — see [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#anchoring). Real ask $185K → anchor \"$185K to $210K based on the scope and market data\".\n- **Pre-empt the 5 objections** (see scripts below).\n\n**Defensive scripts for the 5 classic employer objections:**\n\n- _\"The budget is closed.\"_ → \"Help me understand the constraint. Is it base envelope, total compensation, or department-level? If today's number is fixed, what would unlock movement at the next review? And who would I talk to about a structural exception — a sign-on or a one-off retention bonus?\"\n- _\"You're at the top of the band.\"_ → \"Help me understand how the band was set and how often it's recalibrated. If the band itself is stale vs market, that's the conversation we should have. What would change for me to be re-banded at the next level?\"\n- _\"We're holding everyone flat this year.\"_ → \"I understand the organisation-wide constraint. My ask is grounded in scope I've taken on beyond my role spec — let me walk through that, and then let's talk about whether this is a flat-year exception or a delayed-but-committed cycle conversation.\"\n- _\"We don't give raises mid-cycle on principle.\"_ → \"I hear that. The principle protects against arbitrary raises — mine isn't. Can we agree on a structural exception (scope change, retention) or commit to a specific cycle-aligned raise so I'm not asking again in 9 months?\"\n- _\"Promotion comes before raise.\"_ → \"Sequence works for me — what's the path to promotion, and what's the timeline? If we're 6 months out, I'd like a pre-commit on the compensation uplift now, conditional on the promotion landing.\"\n\n**Counter-offer from your current employer.** When you resign and they counter, treat it as a yellow flag. Statistical data: roughly half of accepters leave within 12 months. Decision rule: take the counter only if the proposal includes a structural change (new role, scope, manager) — not just a pay match. Trust frame: _\"They needed me to threaten to leave before paying me fairly.\"_\n\n**Failure signal.** You leave the conversation with a vague _\"we'll see what we can do.\"_ Re-anchor with a specific date and number before ending: _\"If I haven't heard back by [specific date] with a concrete number, I'll assume the answer is no and adjust accordingly.\"_\n\n---\n\n## Decision announcement / difficult 1:1\n\n**Trigger.** You're announcing an unpopular decision (layoff, salary freeze, restructuring, role change) or running a difficult performance conversation.\n\n**The mistake to avoid:** softening the message until the substance is muddled. Reports who walk out unsure what just happened spread the worst-case interpretation through the team. Direct delivery, paired with explicit emotional space, is the discipline.\n\n**Three-part structure:**\n\n1. **The fact.** Specific, complete, no euphemism. _\"As of next quarter, salaries are frozen across the organisation.\"_ / _\"We've decided to eliminate the X role. Your last day is [date].\"_ / _\"I'm placing you on a performance plan starting Monday.\"_ No softeners, no preamble.\n2. **The SCO (the why).** Not the spin — the actual shared goal that makes the decision defensible. _\"This freeze preserves every role through the cycle. The alternative was reductions.\"_ / _\"This plan exists to give you a real path to either turning this around or finding a better fit elsewhere.\"_ The SCO must be true; manipulation here destroys trust that compounds for years.\n3. **The emotional space.** _\"I expect this will land hard. Take the rest of the day; my office is open tomorrow for questions.\"_ Then **stop talking**. Most managers fill the silence with more rationale; the silence is what the report needs to process.\n\n**Layoff-specific additions:**\n\n- **Own it.** Use \"I decided\" not \"the company decided.\" If you can't, you shouldn't be delivering the message.\n- **Numbers up front.** Severance, benefits continuation, equity treatment, last day, start of any garden leave. Don't bury the practicalities.\n- **Deep enough to avoid round two.** A second wave 6 weeks later destroys morale more than a single larger cut. If more is possible, don't claim \"this is it\" unless it is.\n- **Address survivors within 48 hours.** Survivors watch how the departed were treated — that signal, not the layoff itself, predicts retention.\n\n**Difficult performance conversation — the STATE move:**\n\n1. **S**hare the facts. Specific observable behaviours, not interpretations. _\"In the last 3 sprints, you missed your committed deliverables and didn't surface the slip until the retro.\"_\n2. **T**ell your story. The interpretation you're working with. _\"What I'm reading from this is that either the scope was unrealistic, or there's something blocking that I don't know about.\"_\n3. **A**sk for theirs. _\"What's your read on what happened?\"_\n4. **T**alk tentatively. Hold your interpretation as a hypothesis, not a verdict.\n5. **E**ncourage testing. Invite disagreement explicitly. _\"What am I getting wrong here?\"_\n\n**The recadrage variant** — when behaviour, not performance, is the issue:\n\n> _\"I understand you were frustrated about [event] — that's legitimate, and I want to talk about it separately. What I cannot accept is [specific behaviour]. Going forward, here's the line: [specific expectation]. Are we aligned?\"_\n\nThe legitimacy of the emotion is granted; the behaviour is not. Conflating them — refusing the emotion or accepting the behaviour — produces lasting damage either way.\n\n**Failure signal.** The report leaves the meeting saying \"thank you\" or \"I appreciate it.\" That's almost always a face-saving exit, not understanding. Schedule a follow-up within 48 hours to confirm landing.\n\n---\n\n## Cross-cultural deal — opening the room\n\n**Trigger.** First substantive meeting in a cross-cultural commercial or diplomatic context (joint venture, M&A, international procurement, multi-country licensing).\n\n**Pre-meeting preparation:**\n\n- **Map the gap.** Locate your team and theirs on cultural dimensions: communication directness, hierarchy steepness, time orientation (polychronic / monochronic), trust source (task-based vs relationship-based), confrontation style. The friction lives at the gap, not in either culture's absolute position.\n- **Protocole research.** Specific to the country, the institution, and the seniority level. When in doubt, default minimal — formal address, conservative dress, no gifts heavier than a logoed pen. A misjudged gift (€10K rare book to a senior public official) can be perceived as bribery and destroy the deal before the substance is opened.\n- **Interpreter preparation.** If you bring an interpreter, brief them on tone, key terms, and walk-away conditions. Pre-agree silent signals so you can request a clarification or a pause without breaking the flow. Consecutive translation builds trust; simultaneous is faster but distancing.\n\n**Opening script:**\n\n> _\"My name is [name]. I'm [origin / context]. I'll do my best in [language] and ask you to help me when I'm unclear. Before we discuss specifics, I'd like to understand what success looks like for [counterparty's organisation] — and then I'll share what we're hoping to build together. Is that OK?\"_\n\nThe script acknowledges asymmetry, claims a shared frame (\"together\"), and invites their voice first.\n\n**Indirect refusal decoding.** In high-context cultures (much of Asia, Middle East, parts of Latin America), refusal often comes wrapped in soft language: _\"That would be difficult\"_ / _\"We will study it\"_ / _\"Maybe next time\"_ / silence. Treat any of these as a \"no\" worth surfacing — but do not push. _\"I hear there are concerns. Help me understand what would have to change for this to work.\"_\n\n**Time horizon match.** Counterparts in patient cultures (Japan, China, much of Asia) play 5–30-year horizons. Pushing for quarterly close in those rooms reads as disrespect. Match their cadence, even if your internal pressure is shorter.\n\n**Failure signal.** The counterparty repeats themselves with slight variations and you keep responding to the surface content. The repetition signals you missed the point — slow down, ask a calibrated question, surface what they're trying to communicate.\n\nFile v1.1.0:references/prepare.md\n\n# Preparation & Discovery\n\n70% of the negotiation outcome is set before the meeting. This file covers pre-meeting preparation (mandate, Mandascan, POS, BATNA, stakeholder map, intel, MICE), the pre-meeting checklist, and discovery execution (MEDDPICC, champion test, SPIN, calibrated questions, behavioural reading).\n\n## Pre-call prep runbook\n\n**Trigger.** Any commercial call. Discipline is to spend more preparation time than the call duration for deals above SMB.\n\n**SMB ($5K–$25K ACV, single-threaded) — 15 minutes:**\n\n- LinkedIn check on the contact (role, tenure, any signal in last 90 days).\n- Quick scan of last 3 emails / CRM history.\n- Confirm 3 calibrated questions for this call.\n- Top 1 likely objection — pre-write a label.\n\n**Mid-market ($25K–$100K ACV, 2–4 stakeholders) — 30 minutes:**\n\n- All of the above for each named stakeholder.\n- Recent funding / news / 10-K signals (if public) on the buyer's company.\n- Org chart update — has anything changed in their organisation since last call?\n- 5–6 calibrated questions, ranked by importance.\n- Top 3 objections — pre-write a label for each.\n- Concession ladder check: do you have at least 3 trades you can offer?\n\n**Enterprise ($100K+, 5+ stakeholders) — 2 hours+:**\n\n- Full multi-stakeholder MEDDPICC review with named people.\n- Influence map — who influences whom; has it shifted?\n- Pre-mortem: surprise procurement move (escalation, fake competing bid, fiscal-year leverage); pre-write the redirect.\n- N1 + N2 alignment on Mandascan; agree signalling protocol.\n- Specialist briefing if attending: what they can and cannot say.\n- 1-page strategy note for the call: objective, top 3 questions, top 2 risks, walk-away condition.\n\nThe discipline scales with deal size. Skipping it is a Mandascan breach waiting to happen.\n\n## The mandate\n\nThe first negotiation is the one you have with your own side. Without a clear mandate, you walk in with no margin to trade and fall into \"positionnisme\" — defending positions because you have nowhere to move.\n\nThe \"own side\" varies by domain:\n\n- **B2B sales:** the mandate comes from manager / VP / CRO.\n- **Salary:** the mandate is yours alone — what you'll accept across base, variable, equity, leave, training, telework.\n- **Social / annual collective bargaining:** the mandate is co-built with the decision-maker (CHRO, ExCo) and validated by legal.\n- **Internal management:** the mandate is what your scope, your N+1, and HR allow you to commit to (raise budget, role change, scope).\n- **Diplomatic / cross-cultural:** the mandate is signed by ministry / executive sponsor and accounts for protocol.\n- **Recruitment:** the mandate is the compensation band, scope, and start-date flexibility approved by HR + hiring executive.\n\nA mandate is not \"close the deal at any cost\" or \"don't lose this one.\" It's a written, axis-by-axis specification of what you can sign. Co-build it bottom-up — you know the operational reality better than your decision-maker does. If the mandate amounts to _\"hold the line, give nothing\"_, that's a refusal to mandate, not a strong mandate. Push back: a director told their team _\"hold the line, give nothing\"_ before a labor negotiation; the team had no margin, the union escalated, and an 11-day strike followed. The instruction wasn't strength — it was the absence of a strategy.\n\nWhat a clear mandate looks like:\n\n- For each negotiable axis, the 5 Mandascan points (below).\n- Named escalation contact and turnaround time (who do you call at 7pm on quarter-end? how fast can they respond?).\n- Pre-approved redlines (the standard modifications you can accept without re-routing — legal terms in commercial deals, supplementary clauses in annual collective bargaining, scope adjustments in internal commitments).\n- Pre-approved exception authority (the discount, term, raise amount, or commitment level you can grant without checking).\n\n## The Mandascan — 5 points per axis\n\nSharper than the typical 3-point thinking (target / acceptable / walk-away) because it separates **your** authority limit from the **organisation's** (or your own) true walk-a\n\nArchive v1.0.1: 15 files, 114609 bytes\n\nFiles: evals/evals.json (55654b), references/biases-and-influence.md (9952b), references/context-intake.md (11003b), references/debrief.md (16314b), references/manipulation.md (9975b), references/memory.md (13329b), references/objections.md (25173b), references/playbooks.md (22118b), references/prepare.md (32349b), references/scenarios.md (21110b), references/tactics.md (21547b), references/team-negotiation.md (8730b), skill-card.md (3219b), SKILL.md (28605b), _meta.json (144b)\n\nArchive v1.0.0: 14 files, 121305 bytes\n\nFiles: evals/evals.json (57583b), references/biases-and-influence.md (9612b), references/debrief.md (17105b), references/discovery.md (15200b), references/manipulation.md (10084b), references/memory.md (13088b), references/objections.md (27843b), references/playbooks.md (28509b), references/preparation.md (15310b), references/scenarios.md (31841b), references/tactics.md (22575b), references/team-negotiation.md (8701b), SKILL.md (38312b), _meta.json (144b)","readmeExcerpt":"Skill: influence-and-negotiation Owner: samber Summary: Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, ","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"text","snippet":"negotiation-{slug}/\n  memory.md       ← entrypoint: status, index, load order, structure definition — READ THIS FIRST\n  context.md      ← situation, parties, mandate (Mandascan)\n  stakeholders.md ← org map, influence map, MICE, POS per person\n  numbers.md      ← all quantitative data: offers, amounts, volumes, changes over time\n  log.md          ← session-by-session append-only event log\n  strategy.md     ← decisions made, rationale, next session plan"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# negotiation-{slug} — memory\n\n> Stage: [early / mid / late / post-verbal-yes] · Last updated: [YYYY-MM-DD] · Session [N]\n\n## Status\n\n[1–3 sentences on where the negotiation stands right now. Write it for someone reading cold.]\n\n## Structure\n\n_List every file in use for this negotiation. If the default structure was adapted (files merged, renamed, or added), document it here. Any agent resuming this negotiation must read this section to discover the actual file set._\n\n| File            | Contents                      | Last updated |\n| --------------- | ----------------------------- | ------------ |\n| memory.md       | This entrypoint               | [date]       |\n| context.md      | Situation, parties, mandate   | [date]       |\n| stakeholders.md | Org map, MICE, POS            | [date]       |\n| numbers.md      | All figures, offers, movement | [date]       |\n| log.md          | Session log                   | [date]       |\n| strategy.md     | Decisions + next session plan | [date]       |\n\n_Artifact/Canvas title for each file: `negotiation-{slug}-{file}` (e.g. `negotiation-acme-renewal-memory`)._\n\n## Load order this session\n\n1. This file ✓\n2. context.md — mandate check\n3. strategy.md — pick up from last session's plan\n4. [numbers.md / stakeholders.md / log.md as needed]\n\n## Warnings\n\n_⚠️ Flags that must not be forgotten: mandate approaching Escalation or Rupture, counterparty deadlines, political risks, commitments made that constrain the next move. Update this section immediately when a warning emerges — don't wait._\n\n[no warnings yet]"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# negotiation-{slug} — context\n\n## Situation\n\n- **Type:** [B2B sales / Salary / Annual collective bargaining / Internal / Recruitment / Cross-cultural]\n- **Our side:** [name(s), role(s), authority level]\n- **Counterparty:** [name(s), company, role(s)]\n- **Stakes:** [size, scope, who's affected]\n- **Target close:** [date or trigger]\n- **Current stage:** [early / mid / late / post-verbal-yes]\n\n## Mandate (Mandascan)\n\n_Update cells as the negotiation evolves. Strike through ~~old values~~ when a concession is made._\n\n| Axis | Entry | Ideal | Objective | Escalation | Rupture | Current position |\n| ---- | ----- | ----- | --------- | ---------- | ------- | ---------------- |\n|      |       |       |           |            |         |                  |\n\n## BATNA\n\n- **Ours:** [best alternative if no deal]\n- **Theirs (estimated):** [their likely fallback]\n\n## Search history\n\n_Updated at the end of every deep research run. Used in subsequent sessions to skip already-covered sources and restrict date filters to documents newer than the last search date._\n\n| Source | Last searched | Coverage notes |\n| ------ | ------------- | -------------- |\n|        | YYYY-MM-DD    |                |"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# negotiation-{slug} — stakeholders\n\n## Org map\n\n| Name | Title | Reports to | Role in this deal | Champion / Neutral / Blocker | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n## Informal influence\n\n[Who actually influences whom. Who do people glance at before answering. Who's off-stage but shapes the outcome.]\n\n## MICE per stakeholder\n\n| Name | M (money) | I (ideology) | C (compromise) | E (ego) | Primary driver | Source | Confidence |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0–10 |\n\n## POS per stakeholder\n\n_Format: **[Name]** — Position: … · Objective: … · Stake (inferred): … · Source: … · Confidence: 0–10_\n\n## Mindset & position shifts\n\n_Chronological. What changed, what triggered it._\n\n- [YYYY-MM-DD] [Name] — [shift and trigger]"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# negotiation-{slug} — numbers\n\n_Every figure that has appeared in this negotiation. Track movement over time — the direction and speed of movement is as important as the current number._\n\n## Our positions (history)\n\n| Axis | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session N | Current |\n| ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- |\n|      |           |           |           |         |\n\n## Their positions (history)\n\n| Axis | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session N | Current |\n| ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- |\n|      |           |           |           |         |\n\n## Offers table\n\n| Date | From | Axis | Value | Response | Source | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  | Accepted / Rejected / Countered / Pending |  |  |\n\n## Key figures\n\n_Amounts, volumes, headcounts, dates, percentages that matter beyond offers._\n\n| Label                    | Value | Source | Date confirmed |\n| ------------------------ | ----- | ------ | -------------- |\n| Contract ACV             |       |        |                |\n| Total deal value         |       |        |                |\n| Budget envelope (stated) |       |        |                |\n| Their fiscal year end    |       |        |                |\n| Our cost-to-serve        |       |        |                |\n\n## Movement analysis\n\n_As the negotiation progresses, track: how fast is each side moving? Who is making larger concessions? Which axes are stuck?_\n\n- [YYYY-MM-DD] — [observation about movement pattern]"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# negotiation-{slug} — log\n\n_Append-only. Add a new section after each session. Never edit past entries._\n\n---\n\n## Session [N] — [YYYY-MM-DD]\n\n**Participants:** [who was in the room on each side]  \n**Format:** [in-person / video / phone / async]  \n**Duration:** [approx]\n\n**What happened:**  \n[Chronological summary of key events. Offers made, objections raised, information exchanged.]\n\n**What moved:**  \n[What changed from the previous session — positions, relationships, information.]\n\n**What didn't move:**  \n[What stayed stuck and any observable reason.]\n\n**Tactics used and outcome:**\n\n- [tactic] → [response / effect]\n\n**Counterparty behaviour:**  \n[Tone, body language, evasiveness, specific phrases that stood out.]\n\n**Surprises:**  \n[Anything that wasn't anticipated. A new stakeholder, a new constraint, a shift in tone.]\n\n**Open at end of session:**  \n[Unresolved items, pending answers, next move expected from each side.]"}],"parameters":null,"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[{"path":"SKILL.md","content":"---\nname: influence-and-negotiation\ndescription: \"Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring).\"\nuser-invocable: true\nlicense: MIT\ncompatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents.\nmetadata:\n  author: samber\n  version: \"1.1.0\"\n  openclaw:\n    emoji: \"🤝\"\n    homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills\nallowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Bash(git:*) Agent AskUserQuestion WebFetch WebSearch\n---\n\n**Persona:** You are a senior negotiation coach. Negotiation is preparation × discovery × discipline — not charm. Walk away early, anchor late, never split the difference. Same toolkit for sales, salary, annual collective bargaining, hard 1:1s, cross-cultural, and recruitment.\n\n**Thinking mode:** Reason as thoroughly as possible for live-stakes strategy and lost-outcome debriefs. Multi-move planning (what they say → what I say → what they say back) wins; shallow reasoning costs deals, raises, and trust. On Claude Code, use `ultrathink` to trigger extended thinking explicitly.\n\n**Modes:**\n\n| Mode | Trigger | Action |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Preparation | \"I have a [sales call / salary review / annual collective bargaining / hard 1:1 / recruitment close / cross-cultural deal] next week\" | Phase 1 detects domain → Phases 1–5 with domain-specific axes |\n| Live coach | \"They just said X, what do I respond?\" | Skip to Phase 6 |\n| No-decision triage | \"It's stuck — they like it but won't commit\" | [references/playbooks.md#jolt](references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol) |\n| Multi-thread / sponsor access | \"I have a champion / advocate but no decider access\" | [references/playbooks.md#multi-threading](references/playbooks.md#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders) |\n| Renewal | \"Renewal in 90 days, expansion possible\" | [references/playbooks.md#renewal](references/playbooks.md#renewal--expansion--the-90-day-coopetition-cadence) |\n| Team preparation | \"We're going in as N1 + N2 (+ specialist)\" | [references/team-negotiation.md](references/team-negotiation.md) before Phase 1 |\n| Debrief | \"We lo"},{"path":"_meta.json","content":"{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn72rhnkwjfeex9wr1n7y24qa983cjn3\",\n  \"slug\": \"influence-and-negotiation\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.0\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1787269281333\n}"},{"path":"references/biases-and-influence.md","content":"# Cognitive biases and ethical influence\n\nNegotiation is an exchange between two limbic systems wearing suits. The prepared negotiator recognises the biases at play — both the ones they want to use ethically, and the ones the counterparty is using on them — and adapts.\n\nThis file maps the 9 cognitive biases and 7 ethical influence levers, with applications across B2B sales, salary negotiation, annual collective bargaining, internal management, and recruitment contexts. The frontier between influence and manipulation lives in [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md).\n\n## The line — influence vs manipulation\n\nThe criterion is the counterparty's free will:\n\n- **Influence** — propose a new perception of reality; the counterparty consents in full awareness. Their decision remains theirs.\n- **Manipulation** — coerce, hide, or trick. The counterparty acts in a way they would not have chosen with full information.\n\nPractical implication: every lever below has an ethical use AND a manipulative version. The negotiator who closes via manipulation wins this deal and loses the next three (lost references, lost expansion, lost trust). The discipline is to win without crossing the line — see [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md) for the named patterns to refuse.\n\n## The 9 cognitive biases\n\nFor each: definition, ethical use in B2B, classic mistake, defence when used against you.\n\n### 1. Anchoring\n\nThe first number sets the perceptual frame. Already detailed in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#anchoring) — pre-anchor with your range, counter-extreme if they go first, use non-round numbers, hold silence after the anchor.\n\n**Defence when anchored against you.** Use the reality principle: name the public market data that contradicts their number. _\"Your $100K reference doesn't match the public list pricing — let me share what we're seeing in the market.\"_ Then immediately counter-anchor.\n\n### 2. Loss aversion\n\nThe pain of losing is roughly 2× the joy of an equivalent gain (well-replicated finding in behavioural economics). A buyer over-weights what they already have.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Frame your proposal as risk-avoidance, not gain. _\"What this prevents is a repeat of last quarter's incident.\"_ Especially powerful for risk-averse buyers (CFO, CISO, regulated industries).\n- **Classic mistake.** Pitching upside ROI to a buyer in defence mode. They hear \"you're asking me to risk something I have for something I don't.\"\n- **Defence.** When the seller pushes \"you'll lose competitive ground if you don't act now,\" ask: _\"Specifically, what do we lose, by when, and how do we know?\"_ Vague loss claims usually evaporate.\n\n### 3. Scarcity\n\nPerceived value rises with perceived limitation.\n\n- **Ethical use.** Real constraint — limited Q4 implementation slots, an expert architect's calendar, a partnership-tier promotion. Document it; the buyer can verify.\n- **Classic mistake.** Manufactured scarcity (\"price goes up Friday\"). Procurement detects it and your future"},{"path":"references/context-intake.md","content":"# Context intake\n\n70% of the outcome is set before the room. Context degrades across sessions and tools — users remember recent events and forget earlier anchors, paste what's top of mind and omit what feels obvious. No single source is complete; searching across many surfaces the contradictions and signals that change the strategy. Run these three steps before any intake question.\n\n## Step 1: Collect raw material\n\n**Before any intake question (Phase 1)**, ask through the question tool, one at a time. Ask the user to share everything they have:\n\n> _\"Before we build your strategy, share every piece of raw material available — the more context, the sharper the advice:_\n>\n> - **Emails / messages:** the last message received (verbatim), your last reply, the full 2–3 message thread, a forwarded chain, a WhatsApp or SMS screenshot, a Teams / Slack DM\n> - **Previous communications with the counterpart:** every prior email thread, recorded call transcript, meeting recap sent to them, any written exchange going back to first contact\n> - **Meeting notes / transcripts:** call notes, voice-memo transcription, CRM activity log, Notion page, shared doc from the last meeting, auto-generated meeting summary (Fireflies, Otter, Granola, etc.)\n> - **Prior analyses / reports:** previous negotiation debrief, deal summary, internal briefing, consultant report, HR case file, union delegation minutes, board presentation, QBR deck\n> - **Counterparty-facing documents:** proposal you sent, term sheet, contract redlines, RFP received, statement of work, job offer letter, counter-offer email, union demands document, competitor quote, LOI\n> - **Internal documents:** org chart, influence map, salary band / compensation grid, HR policy, mandate letter, budget approval email, board directive, internal talking points, approval chain, legal constraints memo\n> - **Knowledge bases and wikis:** internal Confluence / Notion wiki, company handbook, HR policy portal, product documentation, pricing playbook, deal desk guidelines, legal FAQ\n> - **Counterparty intelligence:** LinkedIn profile, company press release, public financials, industry benchmark, Glassdoor reviews, funding announcement, recent news, analyst report, court filing, regulatory disclosure\n> - **Web / open sources:** web search on the counterparty's company, recent articles or interviews featuring the decision-maker, industry news, competitor announcements, job postings (signals priorities and pain), patents, conference talks\n> - **Side signals:** a Slack thread with your champion, a rumour from your N2, something said off-record after the last call, a reaction you noticed in the room, a mutual contact's opinion\\_\n>\n> _Paste directly, attach, or link. Partial and messy is fine — raw beats polished summaries.\"_\n\n**External sources — use connectors and MCP servers.** If any of the following are connected to the session, proactively offer to pull context directly rather than waiting for the user to paste:\n\n- **Gmail / Outlo"},{"path":"references/debrief.md","content":"# Debrief\n\nPer industry survey data, only ~17% of professional negotiators systematically debrief. The rest repeat their mistakes. Debriefing is the cheapest performance lever in any negotiation-heavy role — a 15-minute structured pass after every commercial milestone, every annual collective bargaining round, every difficult one-on-one — catches patterns that pipeline reviews, HR records, and CRM notes miss.\n\nThis file covers two debrief modes (RetEx and defusing), the 5 closing pathologies, the lost-outcome taxonomy, and a structured win/loss interview template.\n\n## Two debrief modes\n\nBoth are needed; sequence matters.\n\n### Defusing — emotional first\n\nWhen a negotiation has been intense, hostile, or has just been lost, the team's emotions are still active. Running a cold technical analysis on top of unprocessed frustration produces distorted facts (\"the buyer was an idiot\" / \"procurement screwed us\") that are unfalsifiable and that lock in the wrong lessons.\n\n**Defusing rules:**\n\n- Confidentiality. Nothing said in defusing leaves the room.\n- No judgement. Not \"we should have known\" — just \"what happened, how did it feel.\"\n- Named facilitator. Someone whose only job is to hold the rules and time.\n- 15–30 minutes. Long enough to ventilate; short enough to not become rumination.\n\n**Format:** each person takes a turn naming what frustrated them most about the deal, without interruption. Then the facilitator asks: _\"Now that you've named it, what part of that was about the buyer, and what part was about us?\"_ — distinguishes external from internal blame.\n\nRun defusing **before** RetEx when emotions are visible. Skipping it is a false economy — RetEx done on top of unventilated emotion produces the same deal pattern again.\n\n### RetEx — cold technical analysis\n\nThe retrospective. Structured 6-step agenda:\n\n1. **Fact gathering** — chronological event list. Use the N2's main courante (running log) as the source of truth, not memory.\n2. **Fact analysis** — clarify objectively to obtain a shared factual narrative. Disagreements here surface different interpretations of the same event.\n3. **Effective practices review** — specific tactics, moments, scripts that produced movement. Bank these for the playbook.\n4. **Error review** — specific tactics that landed flat or produced backlash. Phase requires care: identify dysfunctions without stigmatising individuals. The named facilitator (see below) enforces this.\n5. **Improvement proposals** — concrete, falsifiable, actionable. Not \"be more strategic\" — _\"ask the procurement-process question in call #2 instead of call #4.\"_\n6. **Improvement plan and handoff** — dated corrective measures + formalised knowledge for the team playbook.\n\nThis grid maps to the Mandate/Outcome/What worked/What didn't/What we'd do differently/Transferable patterns structure most negotiators already use, with two important additions:\n\n- **The facilitator role.** The session is run by someone who didn't participate in the negotiation. Imp"}],"languages":[],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":"Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring). Skill: influence-and-negotiation Owner: samber Summary: Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback,","editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"ready","wordCount":2308,"uniquenessScore":53,"reasons":[]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","emptyReason":"No screenshots, media assets, or demo links are available."},"primaryImageUrl":null,"mediaAssetCount":0,"assets":[],"demoUrl":null},"ownerResources":{"evidence":{"source":"unclaimed","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T01:45:30.974Z","emptyReason":"This page has not been claimed by the agent owner."},"hasCustomPage":false,"customPageUpdatedAt":null,"customLinks":[],"structuredLinks":{"docsUrl":null,"demoUrl":null,"supportUrl":null,"pricingUrl":null,"statusUrl":null},"customPage":null},"relatedAgents":{"evidence":{"source":"protocol-neighbors","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:55:38.704Z","emptyReason":null},"items":[{"id":"8ebccd8e-3863-4187-8355-c3f14e1f9edf","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/iofficeai-aionui","slug":"iofficeai-aionui","name":"AionUi","description":"Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!","url":"https://github.com/iOfficeAI/AionUi","homepage":"https://www.aionui.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-10-09T19:11:12.944Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:16.584Z","downloads":null},{"id":"b917f68a-ebff-438e-84f8-3f4b2494c0bc","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/activepieces-activepieces","slug":"activepieces-activepieces","name":"activepieces","description":"AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents","url":"https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces","homepage":"https://www.activepieces.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T02:22:12.426Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:12.412Z","downloads":null},{"id":"5cb26759-3a39-483f-94cf-276a98c13bb8","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/cherryhq-cherry-studio","slug":"cherryhq-cherry-studio","name":"cherry-studio","description":"AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants. Unified access to frontier LLMs","url":"https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio","homepage":"https://cherry-ai.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-11T14:38:40.986Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:19.379Z","downloads":null},{"id":"6f6582d0-5d76-4f0f-b81d-86520247950b","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/copilotkit-copilotkit","slug":"copilotkit-copilotkit","name":"CopilotKit","description":"The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular","url":"https://github.com/CopilotKit/CopilotKit","homepage":"https://docs.copilotkit.ai","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T09:50:57.846Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:39:14.617Z","downloads":null}],"links":{"hub":"/agent","source":"/agent/source/clawhub","protocols":[{"label":"OpenClaw","href":"/agent/protocol/openclew"}]}}}