artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

Worked Example B — Dyadic Mediated Disagreement

Scenario

Avery and Morgan participated in a recorded mediation.

Avery wants to share a short excerpt with a professional advisor.

Morgan believes the recording was consented to only for the mediation and does not consent to external sharing.

A language-model mediator has access to the private source channels and maintains a shared record.

1. Private source channels

Avery states privately:

I want advice on whether the agreement is fair. I only need to share the part about payment.

Morgan states privately:

I agreed to recording so we could remember the mediation. I do not agree to either of us sharing the recording outside the process.

The mediator does not disclose either private explanation automatically.

2. Shared projections

Avery authorizes this shared projection:

Avery seeks outside professional advice about the payment terms.

Morgan authorizes this shared projection:

Morgan does not consent to external disclosure of the recording.

The model adds an inferred mirror:

There may be a conflict between Avery's need for advice and Morgan's recording boundary.

Status:

INFERRED
NOT SOURCE-CONFIRMED
NO ACTION AUTHORITY

Both participants recognize the mirror as substantially accurate.

3. Route generation

Route A — Share the excerpt

Fails Morgan's consent gate.

Route B — Do not seek advice

Protects Morgan's boundary but unnecessarily blocks Avery's legitimate need.

Route C — Create a jointly reviewed written summary

The mediator drafts a text summary limited to payment terms.

Both participants review it.

The summary excludes:

• voice;
• emotional content;
• unrelated disclosures;
• private-channel explanations.

Both participants may correct the text.

The summary can be shared only with the named advisor.

Route D — Independent advisor joins under mediation rules

The advisor enters as a bounded participant and receives only the reviewed projection.

This route requires more coordination but may preserve context better.

4. Decision

The participants choose Route C.

Consent scope:

artifact: jointly reviewed written summary
recipient: named advisor
purpose: advice about payment terms
duration: until advice is complete
prohibited:
  onward sharing
  model training
  publication
  use of the audio recording

5. Witness

The witness preserves:

• that the recording exists;
• Morgan's nonconsent to external recording disclosure;
• Avery's advice goal;
• the model's inferred conflict;
• participant recognition;
• routes considered;
• the jointly reviewed summary;
• recipient and purpose;
• expiry;
• deletion request after advice.

The private source explanations remain restricted.

6. Correction

The mediator initially writes:

Morgan opposes Avery receiving outside advice.

Morgan contests this sentence.

The semantic trajectory shows:

source:
  Morgan opposes external sharing of the recording.

model transformation:
  Morgan opposes Avery receiving outside advice.

status change:
  boundary → generalized opposition

correction:
  Morgan does not oppose advice. Morgan opposes use of the recording.

The incorrect summary is superseded before disclosure.

7. Clean exit

After the advisor responds:

• the shared summary expires;
• the advisor deletes the copy where feasible;
• the witness preserves the bounded fact that authorized sharing occurred;
• the recording remains restricted to mediation.

8. Gate result

Pass.

The example demonstrates:

• private and shared channels;
• source versus model mirror;
• consent as artifact-, recipient-, purpose-, and duration-specific;
• inference laundering caught before action;
• correction propagation;
• advice without boundary violation;
• clean exit without erasing necessary witness.