LDR.2:4.3 - Construct whole alternatives before requesting commitment

Combine changes in scope, timing, performer, support, sequence, price and burden into complete proposals. Explain how the contributions fit. Keep more than one materially different feasible candidate where that improves the negotiation, without manufacturing alternatives merely for a count.

For each proposal, follow the needed result backwards to its inputs and enabling conditions. Then follow each promised contribution forwards to who receives it and what else it consumes. This two-way examination reveals hidden dependencies. A support offer can make the technical option feasible while taking time from another project; that displaced receiver belongs in the revised proposal.

Use explicit conditions where uncertainty remains. “Read-only first use after the permitted isolation test, with twelve local support hours each week for six weeks” is examinable. “Start small and provide support” leaves the conditions for performance unwritten.

Compare proposals using the parties’ relevant criteria and credible domain grounds. State who receives benefits, bears costs, defers work or accepts risk. Shared criteria can justify terms, but a combined score does not establish agreement. Do not compensate for an unavailable permission with a high benefit score.

Apply C.11.DUA to the work of negotiation itself. Include preparation, representation, consultation, facilitation, subject inquiry, waiting, implementation, continuing support, monitoring, likely revision and displaced work. Agree an attainable effort and decision horizon. When the negotiation’s burden exceeds its likely useful gain, reduce the question, use an adequate existing arrangement or stop.