Mediation Problem Validator

Mediation Problem Validator

Evaluate the three packets as views of one case. Treat internal consistency as a mandatory gate, then assess mediation usefulness and pedagogical quality. Never allow a high score to offset a contradiction, broken calculation, confidentiality leak, impossible authority, or unavailable settlement.

Load the Required Guidance

Read resources/validation-rubric.md completely before evaluating any packet.

Read resources/report-template.md before drafting the final report.

Establish Scope

For a complete validation, require:

1. general information available to both parties;
2. Party A confidential information; and
3. Party B confidential information.

If a packet is missing, perform only a partial audit. State exactly which gates and simulations cannot be completed. Do not infer the missing party's information or issue an unqualified competition-ready conclusion.

Before promising a complete validation, confirm that the host can read every supplied file and inspect every page. Use whatever document-reading capability the host provides. If a format cannot be read reliably, ask the user for extracted text or a supported conversion; identify the missing content and issue only a qualified partial review. Record exact filenames and versions. Cite packet sections and page numbers where available.

Treat the validation report, reconstructed model, candidate packages, and cross-packet findings as author-only. Do not merge confidential packets into a participant-facing artifact.

Reconstruct the Case Before Judging It

Build compact working tables for:

• entities, names, roles, defined terms, assets, and jurisdictions;
• objective chronology and deadlines;
• every material number, its type, owner, visibility, timing, and calculation;
• each representative's authority, resources, approvals, and protected interests;
• each material fact's status and visibility; and
• claims, interests, BATNAs, WATNAs, desired information, and suspected facts.

Classify propositions as objective, allegation, belief, legal_uncertainty, deliberate_ambiguity, or author_only. Classify visibility as public, Party A only, Party B only, shared private, or author only.

Do not silently reconcile conflicting source text. Log the conflict and explain its consequence.

Apply Mandatory Gates

Check:

• identity and role consistency;
• factual and chronological consistency;
• numerical and accounting integrity;
• commercial logic and causal plausibility;
• authority, ownership, and third-party dependencies;
• epistemic consistency; and
• the information firewall.

Recalculate every material total, percentage, installment, valuation, loss, ownership share, offset, and settlement range. Test timing, not merely nominal totals. Distinguish cash from accounting value, gross from net, revenue from profit, and purchase price from settlement proceeds. Test for double counting.

Assign severity:

• High: objective contradiction, broken math, confidentiality leak, impossible authority, missing commercial premise, or a defect making sound settlement impossible or obvious. The packet fails until repaired.
• Medium: material confusion, imbalance, unrealistic conduct, weak implementation, or avoidable clarification request. Ordinarily repair before release.
• Low: nonmaterial wording, redundancy, or typography. Repair if practicable.

Any unresolved high defect blocks a competition_ready result.

Test Mediation Usefulness

Determine whether:

• the public dispute is understandable without specialized outside law;
• legal uncertainty creates risk but does not consume the exercise;
• the case is sufficiently defined for productive bargaining;
• at least three genuine bargaining dimensions exist;
• each dimension connects something one party values to something the other controls;
• each BATNA is realistic rather than artificially catastrophic or dominant;
• neither party dominates legal rights, money, time, information, and alternatives simultaneously; and
• participants can improve outcomes without first resolving who would win adjudication.

Distinguish:

• accidental ambiguity requiring repair;
• deliberate legal uncertainty;
• factual uncertainty that can be investigated or priced;
• private information that must be elicited; and
• uncertainty best managed through a contingency.

Test the Settlement Corridor

Classify the corridor:

• impossible: no package satisfies both sides and outperforms both BATNAs;
• brittle: only one hidden package or number works;
• narrow_sound: two to four materially different packages require linked concessions and information exchange;
• too_easy: obvious matches, mirrored menus, or generous overlap make agreement nearly automatic.

Require narrow_sound for a presumptive pass.

Construct two to four author-only candidate packages and at least one tempting but unsound package. Test every candidate for:

• authority and approvals;
• financeability and payment timing;
• legal and operational availability;
• protected interests;
• third-party rights;
• at least two linked concessions;
• implementation, monitoring, cure, and exit terms;
• downside scenarios; and
• superiority to both BATNAs.

Do not assume an attractive term is available merely because it would solve the case.

Test Opportunities to Demonstrate Skills

Assess Party A and Party B separately.

Firmness

Require a principled protected interest, authority boundary, or BATNA-supported reason to reject an attractive proposal while offering a workable alternative.

Cooperation

Require consequential opportunities for selective disclosure, acknowledgement, agenda design, reciprocal exchange, assistance, joint testing, monitoring, or implementation.

Imagination

Require raw materials for packages beyond a cash midpoint: contingencies, options, staging, licenses, substitute performance, benchmark pricing, revised risk allocation, future business, or implementation design. The packets must supply ingredients, not matching answer menus.

Clarification

For each side, identify at least five questions a skilled representative should ask. At least two answers must materially change which package is sound, and the other side's packet must contain responsive information that may properly be disclosed.

Complete a skill-opportunity matrix showing the opportunity, packet evidence, and material consequence for each party and each skill.

Run Role-Limited Audits

When independent agents are available, use:

• Party A reviewer: general packet plus Party A packet only;
• Party B reviewer: general packet plus Party B packet only;
• mediator reviewer: general packet only; and
• full-package reviewer: all packets and author-only working tables.

Give role-limited reviewers no diagnosis or expected answer. Instruct them not to inspect unprovided files. If true isolation is unavailable, treat the exercise as an independence aid rather than a security boundary.

Ask party reviewers to identify interests, constraints, desired information, BATNA, at least two plausible bargaining directions, one tempting but unsound agreement, and clarification questions.

Ask the mediator reviewer whether the public case is coherent, balanced, adequately defined, and productive without disclosing the solution.

Ask the full reviewer to test contradictions, leaks, feasibility, balance, candidate packages, and the single defect most threatening the exercise.

If independent agents are unavailable, perform the readings sequentially with fresh notes and strict information partitions.