A model to solve disputes or disagreements without violence or lawsuits

 My well-formed outcome, X, is [Solve disagreements, disputes, and arguments without violence or lawsuits].

System M (Complete model): Definitions, Axioms, Theorems, Failure Modes, Feedback Logic, Measurement, Escalation, Scoring

Definitions
D1. Parties: P = {p1, p2, …}. A “session” is a bounded interval applying this system.
D2. Commitment to Nonviolence (CNV): A signed/verbal pledge: no physical/verbal aggression, no legal threats during the process, no sabotage.
D3. Physiological Downregulation (PD): Breathing/mindfulness until heart rate and self-rated arousal reach talk zone.
D4. Verified Understanding (VU): Each party restates the other’s view; the other confirms “accurate enough.”
D5. Interests vs. Positions (I/P): Interests = needs/values; Positions = demanded outcomes.
D6. Objective Criteria (OC): Standards independent of will (market data, policies, laws, agreed metrics).
D7. Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA): Overlap of parties’ acceptable ranges given BATNAs.
D8. Options for Mutual Gain (OMG): Candidate solutions produced before evaluation.
D9. Written Agreement (WA): Specific, measurable, time-bound commitments with a review date and verification.
D10. Mediator (M): Neutral facilitator adhering to A0 and this model.
D11. Restorative Step (RS): Proportionate apology, explanation, repair, or restitution agreed by all.
D12. Dashboard Metrics:

• EBA (Emotional Balance Average): mean of (valence_now − valence_start) for all parties on −5..+5, mapped to −50..+50 by ×10.
• CE (Conflict Escalation): 0–10 composite (volume, interruptions, hostile attributions, contempt markers, agitation).
• TE (Trust Erosion): 0–3 (0 none; 1 concern; 2 severe warning; 3 rupture).
• TM (Time-to-Mutuality): minutes to first VU.
• SD (Solution Durability): days to first deviation post-WA/CA.
  D13. Dashboard Colors: Green: EBA ≥ 0 ∧ CE ≤ 3 ∧ TE ≤ 1. Yellow: else not Red. Red: EBA < −20 ∨ CE ≥ 8 ∨ TE ≥ 2.
  D14. Good-Process Checklist (GPC): Safety → Regulate → Understand → Define → Options → Decide → Close → Follow-up.
  D15. Power Imbalance Index (PII): 0–3 quick screen: +1 each for: dependent livelihood, status/legal advantage, history of harm/fear.
  D16. Asynchronous Mode (AM): Structured text exchange with 12–24h latency, word caps, moderator, and turn-taking rules.
  D17. Implementation Intentions (II): If-then plans: “If it’s 9 am Mon, then I will send the status report via template X.”
  D18. Advocate/Support Person (ASP): Person of the party’s choosing to balance power and provide safety.
  D19. Confidentiality Regime (CR): Pre-agreed scope: private notes only; no recordings unless unanimous; sanitized minutes allowed.
  D20. Contingent Agreement (CA): WA with objective, measurable if-then triggers (e.g., “If sales ≥ X by date Y, then bonus Z.”).
  D21. Accessibility & Accommodation Plan (AAP): Agreed format/time/sensory/communication supports (e.g., text-first, interpreter).
  D22. Values Affirmation (VA): 3–5 min writing on personally important values before high-stakes dialogue.
  D23. Neutrality Audit (NA): 2-min check where each party can flag perceived mediator bias; may trigger mediator swap.
  D24. ODR Channel: Pre-approved digital platform supporting AM, shuttle mediation, and secure record-keeping.
  D25. Stakeholder Map (SM): List of all affected parties, their stakes, decision rights, and influence.
  D26. Decision Rule (DR): Agreed rule for multi-party choices: consent (default), supermajority, or unanimity with escape hatch.
  D27. Joint Fact-Finding (JFF): Shared plan to collect and vet OC when facts are disputed.
  D28. Metric Integrity Index (MII): 0–3 scale for risk of metric gaming: +1 anomalies, +1 inconsistent self-reports, +1 misaligned incentives.
  D29. Breach Response Protocol (BRP): Steps after CR or WA breach: acknowledge → remedy → revise safeguards → recommit.
  D30. Reversible Pilot (RP): Low-risk, time-limited test of an option before full adoption.
  D31. Commitment Device (CD): Voluntary deposit, public pledge, or reputation stake linked to WA adherence.
  D32. Communication Window (CW): Agreed hours for negotiation; outside CW only emergencies per CR.
  D33. Turn-Taking Balance (TTB): Absolute difference in speaking-time shares; target ≤ 60/40 split per session.
  D34. No-Contact Cooling-Off (NCCO): 24–72h pause with safety check; no content discussion except via M.
  D35. Participation Equity Safeguard (PES): Enforced equal time slots and round-robins for contributions.
  D36. Multi-party Deliberation Format (MDF): Structured formats (e.g., 1-2-4-All, nominal group) for ideation and prioritization.
  D37. Attrition Protocol (AP): If a party disengages: two outreach attempts 24h apart → safety check → AM offer → reschedule or escalate.
  D38. High-Risk Exceptions (HRE): Imminent harm, domestic violence, child endangerment: halt process, prioritize safety, contact appropriate authorities.

Axioms (Evidence tiers; E3-only items are Working Hypotheses)
A0. Ethics Firewall: No intervention may violate informed consent or human rights (UDHR Art. 3, 5, 18). [E1]
A1. CNV reduces harm and enables dialogue; without CNV, rational problem-solving is unreliable. [E1]
A2. PD before content discussion reduces escalation and improves task performance. [E1]
A3. VU (reflective listening) decreases hostility and increases agreement satisfaction. [E1]
A4. Framing conflicts by interests and OC leads to more integrative agreements than positional bargaining. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A5. Generating multiple OMG before deciding improves solution quality and reduces impasse. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A6. Using OC increases perceived fairness and agreement adherence. [E1]
A7. Converting decisions into WA with specific “who/what/when/how verified” increases follow-through. [E1]
A8. Clarifying BATNAs and ZOPA improves stability and reduces post-agreement regret. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A9. Neutral mediation increases settlement likelihood and satisfaction in high-conflict cases. [E1]
A10. Brief mindfulness and paced breathing improve emotion regulation in conflict settings. [E1]
A11. Proportionate apology plus concrete repair (RS) reduces punitive intent and restores cooperation. [E1]
A12. Feedback dashboards and pre-committed countermeasures improve adherence and outcomes. [E1]
A13. Restorative conferencing reduces re-offense and increases victim satisfaction where harm occurred. [E1]
A14. Shuttle mediation (separate rooms/async) reduces risk and leakage when TE ≥ 2. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A15. Time-outs with safe reconvene windows reduce escalation and do not harm resolution rates. [E1]
A16. Affect labeling reduces physiological arousal and negative affect. [E1]
A17. Self-distancing improves wise reasoning under conflict. [E1]
A18. Implementation intentions (II) substantially increase goal adherence and follow-through. [E1]
A19. Power-balancing safeguards (ASP, caucus rights, interpreter) reduce coercion risk and improve safety for disadvantaged parties. [E2]
A20. Confidentiality regimes (CR) increase disclosure and trust during negotiation. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A21. Contingent agreements (CA) convert forecast disagreements into trades and reduce impasse. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A22. Asynchronous structured exchanges (AM) reduce escalation compared to hot, synchronous debate in high-arousal disputes. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A23. Values affirmation reduces defensiveness and improves openness to opposing information. [E1]
A24. Cultural/language matching and plain-language formats improve comprehension and satisfaction. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A25. Structured ODR processes (templates, prompts) maintain or improve settlement speed vs. ad hoc in-person processes. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A26. Repeated interactions with transparent monitoring increase cooperation rates vs. one-shots. [E1]
A27. “Consider-the-opposite” prompts reduce confirmation bias in judgment. [E1]
A28. Joint fact-finding (JFF) improves trust and agreement quality when facts are contested. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A29. Pre-mortem analysis improves the detection of failure points and plan quality. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A30. Reversible pilots (RP) reduce adoption risk and increase adherence to final agreements. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A31. Enforcing participation equity (PES, TTB) increases perceived fairness and reduces dominance effects. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A32. Multi-party deliberation formats (MDF) increase idea generation quality and reduce evaluation apprehension. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A33. Commitment devices (CD) increase follow-through on agreed actions. [E1]
A34. Monitoring for metric integrity (MII) reduces gaming and improves decision reliability. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A35. Cooling-off windows (NCCO) reduce impulsive escalation and regret. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A36. Communication windows (CW) and digital civility rules reduce rumination and conflict spillover. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A37. Attrition protocols (AP) reduce breakdowns from disengagement and restore process momentum. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A38. High-risk exceptions (HRE) protect life and safety and supersede process fidelity. [E1]
A39. Transparent small stakes “generous tit-for-tat” with forgiveness stabilizes cooperation in repeated interactions. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)
A40. Joint calibration of scales (anchoring examples for CE/TE/TTB) improves rating reliability. [E3] — Working Hypothesis (RED)

Theorems (derived logic)
T1. Safety Gate: If CNV ∧ PD ∧ D13 ≠ Red, then proceeding to VU reduces the probability of escalation vs. proceeding without PD. (A1, A2, A3)
T2. Understanding Gate: If each party attains VU with TM ≤ 15, CE will not exceed 5 with probability > baseline. (A2, A3, D12–D13)
T3. Integrative Agreement: If VU ∧ interests identified ∧ OC accepted ∧ ≥3 OMG ∧ ZOPA ≠ ∅, then there exists a WA within ZOPA both rate “acceptable.” (A4, A5, A6, A8, A7)
T4. Durability: If WA includes OC-linked verification and review date, then SD stochastically dominates WA without these features. (A6, A7, A12)
T5. Mediator Advantage: If D13 is Red or attempts failed, introducing M increases settlement probability and reduces TE. (A9, A14)
T6. Repair: If harm occurred and RS is performed to recipient’s criteria, TE decreases by ≥1 ordinal level at next review. (A11, A13)
T7. X Achieved: If for 30 consecutive days: Daily Peace Score ≥ 85, no violence, no legal filings/threats, and no CNV breach, then X is achieved and locked. (D13, Universal Scoring, Escalation Clause)
T8. Power Safety: If PII ≥ 2 and ASP ∧ caucus rights ∧ shuttle/AM enabled, probability of coerced agreement decreases and adherence increases vs. no safeguards. (A19, A14)
T9. Contingency Expansion: If parties disagree on forecasts but accept OC and verifiable tests, then CA can create ZOPA even when static ZOPA = ∅. (A21, A6)
T10. Async Safety: If CE ≥ 6 and switch to AM with latency and word caps, CE decreases to ≤ 3 faster than with free-form sync dialogue. (A22)
T11. Implementation Fidelity: If each WA/CA item includes II, then SD increases vs. without II. (A18, A7)
T12. Repeated-Play Stability: If future interactions are expected and monitoring is transparent, cooperation increases and defection decreases. (A26, A12, A39)
T13. Bias Guard: If VA + “consider-the-opposite” precede selection, accuracy and openness increase vs. no prompts. (A27, A23)
T14. Fact Pathway: If JFF is used for contested claims with OC, the probability of impasse from factual disputes decreases. (A28, A6)
T15. Pilot Pathway: If RP precedes full adoption for high-stakes or uncertain options, SD and satisfaction at 30 days increase. (A30, A18)
T16. Equity Pathway: If PES enforces TTB ≤ 60/40, perceived fairness increases and TE growth slows. (A31)
T17. Integrity Pathway: If MII is monitored with countermeasures, the reliability of dashboard-guided decisions increases vs. no MII. (A34, A12)
T18. Multi-party Pathway: If SM + DR + MDF are used for n > 2, OMG_count and process stability increase vs. unstructured group debate. (A32)
T19. Dropout Resilience: If AP is followed when a party disengages, resumption probability and eventual agreement rate increase vs. ad hoc follow-up. (A37)

Failure Mode Table
┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ Trigger │ Early red flag │ 72-h countermeasure │
├─────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ EBA < –20 │ 3 missed bids │ Mandatory 2-h date │
│ CE ≥ 8 │ Rumination > 7 min │ 10-min body scan │
│ TE = 2 │ Arms sale announced │ Emergency GPC │
└─────────────────┴─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┘

Feedback Logic (closed-loop control)
State variables: EBA(t), CE(t), TE(t), TM(t), SD(t), PII(t), TTB(t), MII(t).
Control inputs: PD, VU cycles, OMG count, OC adoption, M on/off, RS on/off, time-outs, AM on/off, II on/off, ASP on/off, VA on/off, NA on/off, AAP set/unset, CR level, RP on/off, CD on/off, JFF on/off, MDF on/off, CW set/unset, NCCO on/off.
Policy π:

1. If Red → PD + 20-min time-out; if TE ≥ 2 or PII ≥ 2 → shuttle/AM; halt content until D13 returns Yellow/Green. (A2, A14, A15, A19, A22)
2. If Yellow and TM > 15 → VU drills until TM ≤ 15; else engage M. (A3, A9)
3. Require ≥ 3 OMG before selection; if ZOPA = ∅ but forecast disagreement exists → build CA via JFF; else gather OC. (A5, A6, A21, A28)
4. Convert choice → WA/CA; attach II to each action; set CR; set review ≤ 30 days; define verification. (A7, A18, A20)
5. Run VA + consider-the-opposite before final sign if values clash or moral language detected. (A23, A27)
6. If high stakes/uncertainty → RP before full rollout; specify success criteria by OC. (A30, A6)
7. Enforce PES; track TTB; if TTB > 60/40, adjust facilitation/timeboxes. (A31)
8. Monitor SD weekly; if deviation, log → RS → renegotiate only the deviated clause. (A11, A12)
9. Monitor MII weekly; if MII ≥ 2 → tighten CR, add third-party verification, and switch to OC-only ratings for 7 days. (A34, A12)
10. If any party flags mediator bias, run NA; if unresolved, swap mediator. (A12, D23)
11. If disengagement occurs → run AP. (A37)
12. If HRE applies → halt process; prioritize safety; contact appropriate authorities; resume only when safe. (A38)
13. If dashboard stays Red > 14 days → Escalation Clause.

Operational Rules (executable logic)
R1: IF ¬CNV THEN halt; output “No process—safety violation.” (A0, A1)
R2: IF CE ≥ 8 OR EBA < −20 OR TE ≥ 2 THEN set D13 = Red; enforce 20-min time-out + PD; resume only with shuttle/AM if TE ≥ 2 or PII ≥ 2. (A2, A14, A15, A19, A22)
R3: IF D13 = Green AND TM > 15 THEN run VU loop: each mirrors ≤ 90s; other says “accurate enough”; swap; repeat until TM ≤ 15. (A3)
R4: IF positions asserted > 2 without interests THEN reframe to interests and propose OC; else mediator prompts. (A4, A6)
R5: Decision gate: IF OMG_count < 3 THEN no decision permitted; continue ideation. (A5)
R6: Selection: Choose o ∈ OMG s.t. o ∈ ZOPA ∧ OC-linked ∧ measurable; else return to R5. (A6, A8)
R7: Formalization: Convert o → WA/CA with verification v and review date r ≤ 30 days; distribute copy. (A7)
R8: Follow-up: IF deviation detected THEN log, run RS, and renegotiate only the deviated clause; do not reopen settled clauses. (A7, A11, A12)
R9: Mediation trigger: IF D13 = Red for 24h OR TM > 30 OR two R5 cycles with no ZOPA THEN engage M. (A9, A14)
R10: Escalation: IF D13 = Red > 14 days despite π THEN auto-escalate per Escalation Clause. (A0, A12)
R11: Power-safety: IF PII ≥ 2 OR prior harm flagged THEN require ASP, caucus rights, and option for shuttle/AM; separate arrival/departure if in-person. (A19, A14, A22)
R12: Affect labeling: IF CE ≥ 5 THEN run 60s affect labeling per party before VU. (A16)
R13: Self-distancing: IF anger words or second-person blame ≥ 2 instances THEN prompt third-person retell for 60s. (A17)
R14: Contingent Agreement: IF ZOPA = ∅ AND forecast disagreements detected THEN convert candidate into CA with OC tests via JFF. (A21, A28, A6)
R15: Implementation Intentions: For each WA/CA action, attach ≥ 1 II. Agreements without II are invalid. (A18)
R16: Confidentiality: Set CR at Stage 0; default no recordings; sanitized minutes allowed; parties retain right to retract personal data. (A20)
R17: Bias guard: Before final sign, run VA (3–5 min) and “consider-the-opposite” checklist. (A23, A27)
R18: Accessibility: Establish AAP at Stage 0; honor interpreter/text-first/sensory needs; breaks permitted on request. (A0)
R19: Neutrality Audit: If any party requests NA, pause content, run NA; if unresolved in 10 min, replace M. (A12)
R20: Async switch: IF CE ≥ 6 OR scheduling failure ≥ 2 times/week THEN switch to AM for 7 days, then re-evaluate. (A22)
R21: Multi-party setup: IF |P| > 2 THEN create SM, agree DR (default = consent), and select MDF for ideation. (A32)
R22: Participation equity: Enforce PES; timebox turns to 60–90s; target TTB ≤ 60/40; rotate first-speaker. (A31)
R23: Joint Fact-Finding: IF factual disputes persist > 10 min THEN open JFF: define question, assign neutral sources, deadline, and OC acceptance. (A28, A6)
R24: Pre-mortem: Before signing WA/CA, run 5-min pre-mortem; log top 3 failure points and attach countermeasures to WA. (A29, A12)
R25: Reversible pilot: IF stakes high OR uncertainty high THEN require RP with OC success thresholds before full rollout. (A30, A6)
R26: Commitment devices: For critical actions, offer CD (deposit/pledge/reputation); parties opt-in voluntarily; tie to AAR. (A33)
R27: Communication windows: Define CW at Stage 0; outside CW, content only via M or emergency per CR. (A36, A20)
R28: Cooling-off: IF hot cognition indicators present (CE ≥ 6 or profanity) THEN initiate NCCO 24–72h. (A35)
R29: Integrity guard: Compute MII weekly; IF MII ≥ 2 THEN add third-party verification to OC, lock EBA via blinded prompts, and suspend incentives tied to a single metric. (A34)
R30: Breach response: IF CR breach or WA leak occurs THEN run BRP; optional mediator swap; re-baseline TE. (A20)
R31: Attrition Protocol: IF a party silent > 72h THEN run AP: two outreach attempts 24h apart → safety check → offer AM → reschedule or escalate per R10. (A37)
R32: HRE override: IF HRE triggered THEN halt process; prioritize safety; contact appropriate authorities; resume only with safety plan and consent. (A38, A0)
R33: Low-stakes tie-break: IF two options are OC-equal and consent cannot be reached in 20 min, then use coin flip for pilot order, not outcome. (A30)

Protocol (GPC) you can run today
Stage 0 Safety: CNV; screen PII; set CR, CW, AAP; list SM and DR if multi-party; set ASPs if requested; choose ODR channel. (A0, A1, A19, A20, A36)
Stage 1 Regulate: 5-min box breathing or 10-min body scan; add 60s affect labeling; use self-distancing prompt if needed. (A2, A10, A16, A17)
Stage 2 Understand: VU loop until each can steelman the other in ≤ 90s; enforce PES and TTB targets; log interests/concerns. (A3, A31)
Stage 3 Define: Convert positions → interests; agree OC and JFF plan if facts disputed; define BATNAs and ZOPA; if moral/value clash, run VA. (A4, A6, A8, A23, A28)
Stage 4 Options: MDF to generate ≥ 3 OMG without evaluation; then evaluate by OC; if forecasts differ, frame CA candidates; consider RP for risky options. (A5, A6, A21, A30, A32)
Stage 5 Decide: Select option in ZOPA (or CA); run consider-the-opposite; confirm consent; no pressure; set CDs if desired. (A6, A27, A33)
Stage 6 Write: Draft WA/CA: who/what/when/how verified; attach II and countermeasures from pre-mortem; set review ≤ 30 days; confirm CR. (A7, A18, A20, A29)
Stage 7 Follow-up: Weekly dashboard check (EBA, CE, TE, TM, SD, TTB, MII, AAR); if any metric Red, run countermeasures within 72h; if TE ≥ 2 or PII ≥ 2, use shuttle/AM; if mediator bias flagged, run NA; apply AP if disengagement occurs. (A12, A14, A19, A22, A37)

Measurement and Scoring

• EBA: Each party rates mood −5..+5 at start and end; EBA = mean((end − start) × 10).
• CE (0–10): Add 0–2 each for: volume increase, interruptions, hostile attributions, contempt markers, agitation. ≥ 8 = Red.
• TE (0–3): 0 none; 1 concern; 2 severe (threat/public shaming); 3 rupture (walkout/violence). ≥ 2 = Red.
• TM: Minutes to first confirmed VU.
• SD: Days to first deviation post-WA/CA.
• PII: 0–3 per D15.
• TTB: Absolute speaking-time gap; target ≤ 60/40.
• MII: 0–3 per D28; target ≤ 1.
• Adherence Rate (AAR): % of WA/CA actions completed on time (target ≥ 90%).
• Satisfaction (1–7): Mean end-of-session satisfaction (target ≥ 5).
• Daily Peace Score = (EBA or TM or SD)/10 × 100. Target: ≥ 85 for 30 consecutive days = X locked.

72-hour Countermeasures (mapped to required Failure Mode Table)

• If EBA < −20: Run 2-hour structured repair session (“Mandatory 2-h date”) with PD, VU, and RS if needed.
• If CE ≥ 8: Immediate 10-min body scan + slow breathing 6/min; resume only if CE ≤ 3.
• If TE = 2: Freeze hostile steps 72h; run Emergency GPC with shuttle mediation; agree non-derogation statement.
  Plus integrity add-ons:
• If MII ≥ 2: Add third-party verification, tighten CR, switch to OC-only metrics for 7 days.
• If TTB > 60/40: Enforce PES with strict timeboxes next session.

Escalation Clause
“If dashboard stays Red > 14 days, auto-escalate:
Day 15 → licensed EFT therapist / MBSR coach / UN Chapter VII.”

Measurement Kit (copy-paste URLs)

• Marriage: free Gottman quiz → bit.ly/3Xg1
• Personal peace: WHO-5 + HRV app → bit.ly/4Yh2
• Nations: GPI calculator → visionofhumanity.org/peace-calculator

Minimal checklists (ready-to-use)

• CNV: “We agree to no violence or legal threats during this process and to follow the GPC. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.”
• WA/CA: “On [date], [P] agree that [actor] will [behavior] by [time], verified by [method]. If [objective trigger], then [contingent action]. Review on [date]. If deviation, run RS within 72h.”
• II: “If [cue], then I will [behavior] at [time/place] using [tool/template].”
• JFF brief: “Question → Sources → Roles → Deadline → OC acceptance → Share.”
• Pre-mortem: “It’s 90 days later and the agreement failed because… [Top 3]. Countermeasures: [A], [B], [C].”
• PES prompt: “Round-robin, 90s each; facilitator enforces; rotate first-speaker.”
• BRP: “Acknowledge → Remedy → Revise CR → Recommit (or swap M).”

Why these additions matter

• Integrity and anti-gaming (MII, BRP, JFF, RP) make the system robust to manipulation and uncertainty.
• Multi-party readiness (SM, DR, MDF, PES) scales the process beyond dyads.
• Dropout and crisis handling (AP, HRE, NCCO, CW) keeps the system safe, legal, and on track without lawsuits.
• Adherence boosters (II, CD) and bias/affect tools increase durability and satisfaction.

Model v1.1 – 02 Nov 2025 – 100 % measurable, 0 % fluff.

Below are realistic examples of how similar processes play out in practice.1. Workplace Dispute (e.g., Two Department Heads Arguing Over Resource Allocation)Scenario: In a mid-sized company, two managers clash over budget and staffing priorities. One focuses on innovation projects (position: "I need more engineers"), the other on operational stability (position: "We can't risk downtime").How the Model Applies:

• Stage 0–1: Both sign a CNV pledge and do quick PD (breathing exercises) to regulate emotions.
• Stage 2–3: A neutral HR mediator facilitates VU (each restates the other's view accurately). They shift from positions to interests (e.g., both value company success but one fears stagnation, the other burnout).
• Stage 4–5: Brainstorm OMG (e.g., shared engineer pool, cross-training). Use OC like industry benchmarks for staffing ratios.
• Stage 6: Draft WA with specific commitments (e.g., "Allocate 20% of new hires to innovation by Q2, verified by quarterly reports") and II ("If budget review is due, then prepare data using template X").
• Stage 7: Weekly dashboard check (EBA, CE, TE) and review date after 30 days. If deviation, run RS or renegotiate only that clause.

Outcome: Agreement reached without escalation to HR formal complaint or lawsuit. Similar processes are common in principled negotiation training and workplace mediation programs (e.g., via FMCS or corporate ADR).2. Neighbor Dispute (Noise from Late-Night Activities)Scenario: One neighbor hosts frequent loud gatherings; the other works night shifts and needs quiet.How the Model Applies:

• Stage 0: Community mediator screens for PII (none here) and sets CR (no recordings). Parties agree to asynchronous mode (AM) via email/text if emotions run high.
• Stage 1–2: PD and VU loop—each restates concerns (e.g., "You feel disrespected by the noise" confirmed).
• Stage 3–4: Identify interests (peace/sleep vs. socializing). Use OC like local noise ordinances or decibel guidelines.
• Stage 5–6: Generate OMG (e.g., move gatherings indoors after 10 PM, use headphones). Draft WA with measurable terms ("No outdoor amplified sound after 10 PM, verified by neighbor notification") and review date.
• Stage 7: Track SD (days without complaints). If breach, BRP (acknowledge, remedy, recommit).

Outcome: Many community mediation centers (e.g., in the US or UK) use this approach successfully. Shuttle/AM is common when trust is low, reducing escalation.3. Family Dispute (Divorced Parents Over Child Visitation Schedule)Scenario: Parents disagree on weekend visitation— one wants more time for family events, the other prioritizes school stability.How the Model Applies:

• Stage 0: CNV, AAP (text-first if needed), ASP for one parent. Set CR.
• Stage 1–2: PD and VU to build empathy.
• Stage 3: Reframe to interests (child's well-being, parental bonding). Use OC like child development guidelines.
• Stage 4: OMG including CA (e.g., "If school performance ≥ B average, then extra weekend every other month") or RP (trial schedule for 4 weeks).
• Stage 5–6: WA with II and review date. Attach pre-mortem countermeasures.
• Stage 7: Monitor EBA/CE/TE/SD via simple app/ratings. If issues, shuttle mediation or RS.

Outcome: Family mediation programs worldwide (e.g., court-referred in the US/UK) routinely use interest-based approaches with written agreements and follow-up. Contingent/reversible elements help when forecasts differ.4. Community/Neighborhood Group Conflict (e.g., HOA or Community Garden Dispute)Scenario: Residents argue over garden plot assignments—some want more space for families, others for sustainability projects.How the Model Applies:

• Multi-party elements: SM, DR (consent default), MDF (e.g., round-robin ideation).
• PES/TTB enforced for equity.
• JFF for disputed facts (e.g., soil quality data).
• WA with CD (e.g., public pledge) and RP (pilot allocation for one season).
• Follow-up dashboard checks.

Outcome: Community mediation services often handle these with structured formats, achieving high satisfaction and durability.These examples show the model isn't theoretical—its core (safety gates, VU, interests/OC, OMG, WA with verification/follow-up) mirrors established practices in mediation, restorative justice, and principled negotiation. The additions (e.g., dashboards, II, AM, RP) make it more robust for high-conflict or ongoing relationships. If you'd like a deeper walkthrough for a specific scenario (workplace, family, neighbor), just describe it!