⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.

Mediation Analysis

Production-ready framework for analyzing disputes and preparing mediation strategy. Covers the full cycle from dispute assessment through settlement calculation, interest mapping, and mediation readiness.

---

Table of Contents

• Operating Modes
• Tools
• Core Analysis Framework
• Underlying Interests Analysis
• Legal Analysis
• Settlement Strategy
• Reference Guides
• Workflows
• Troubleshooting
• Success Criteria
• Scope and Limitations
• Anti-Patterns
• Tool Reference

---

Clarify First

Before the analysis, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• Which party you represent — frames the positions, interests, and BATNA/WATNA from your side; a neutral framing produces a different analysis
• Claimed amount, each side's litigation costs, and success probability — these are the settlement-calculator inputs; BATNA, WATNA, and ZOPA all derive from them
• Whether there is an ongoing relationship — determines whether the analysis weights an interest-based or package-deal scenario over a straightforward monetary compromise

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the analysis.

Operating Modes

Mode 1: Guided Information Gathering

Use when starting from scratch without structured materials.

Step 1 -- Dispute Overview:

• Who are the parties? (names, roles, relationship)
• What is the dispute about? (summary in neutral terms)
• When did the dispute arise? (timeline of key events)
• What is the current status? (pre-litigation, filed, discovery, trial date)

Step 2 -- Positions and Claims:

• What does each party want? (stated positions)
• What are the claimed amounts? (monetary and non-monetary)
• What evidence supports each side?
• What are the weaknesses in each side's case?

Step 3 -- Context and Constraints:

• Is there an ongoing relationship? (employment, commercial, family)
• Are there power imbalances? (resources, information, leverage)
• Are there time pressures? (deadlines, statute of limitations)
• What has been tried so far? (direct negotiation, prior mediation)

Mode 2: Direct Analysis

Use when dispute materials are already available (pleadings, correspondence, statements).

Provide the materials and specify which analysis sections are needed. The framework will extract the structured analysis from the raw materials.

---

Tools

Dispute Analyzer

Extracts structured dispute data from text descriptions.

# Analyze a dispute description
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --input dispute.txt

# Analyze with JSON output
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --input dispute.txt --json

# Analyze inline text
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --text "Party A claims breach of contract for failure to deliver..."

# Save structured analysis
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --input dispute.txt --output analysis.json

Settlement Calculator

Calculates BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA, and settlement scenarios.

# Calculate from parameters file
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py --input params.json

# Calculate with JSON output
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py --input params.json --json

# Quick inline calculation
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py \
  --claimed 500000 \
  --litigation-cost-a 80000 \
  --litigation-cost-b 120000 \
  --probability 0.65 \
  --time-to-trial 18

# Save settlement analysis
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py --input params.json --output settlement.json

---

Core Analysis Framework

The analysis produces 6 sections. Each section builds on the previous.

Section 1: Case Summary

Write a neutral chronological summary covering:

Element	Description
Parties	Names, roles, and relationship
Timeline	Key events in chronological order
Dispute trigger	The event that escalated to a dispute
Current status	Procedural posture (pre-suit, filed, discovery)
Prior resolution attempts	What has been tried

Neutrality check: The summary should be acceptable to both parties. Avoid characterizing conduct as "wrong" or "unreasonable."

Section 2: Issues in Dispute

For each issue, document:

Component	Description
Issue statement	Neutral framing of the disputed question
Party A position	What Party A asserts and why
Party B position	What Party B asserts and why
Key evidence	Evidence supporting each side
Strength assessment	Strong / Moderate / Weak for each side
Legal basis	Applicable law, contract terms, or principles

Section 3: Underlying Interests Analysis

Move beyond positions to interests. See detailed section below.

Section 4: Legal Analysis

Per-issue assessment of legal merits. See detailed section below.

Section 5: Mediation Strategy and Settlement Directions

BATNA/WATNA, ZOPA, and settlement scenarios. See detailed section below.

Section 6: Mediation Readiness Checklist

Item	Status	Notes
All parties agreed to mediate
Mediator selected and confirmed
Decision-makers attending or available
Key documents exchanged or available
Opening statement prepared
Settlement authority established
BATNA/WATNA analysis complete
Non-monetary interests identified
Creative options brainstormed
Authority limits clarified with client

---

Underlying Interests Analysis

Interests are the needs, concerns, and motivations behind stated positions.

Interest Categories

Category	Description	Examples
Legal	Rights, entitlements, obligations	Contract rights, statutory claims, precedent
Commercial	Business and financial concerns	Revenue, costs, market position, reputation
Relational	Relationship preservation	Ongoing business, employment, community ties
Emotional	Personal feelings and values	Fairness, respect, acknowledgment, vindication
Procedural	How the process unfolds	Speed, privacy, control, voice, transparency

Interest Mapping

For each party, map interests by category and priority:

Party	Interest	Category	Priority	Compatible?
A	Preserve business reputation	Commercial	High	Yes -- shared
A	Recover financial losses	Legal/Commercial	High	Negotiable
B	Avoid setting precedent	Legal	High	Negotiable
B	Maintain relationship with A	Relational	Medium	Yes -- shared

Shared and Compatible Interests

Identify interests both parties share or that do not conflict:

• Shared: Both want confidentiality, speed, cost control
• Compatible: A wants acknowledgment, B wants no public admission -- private acknowledgment possible
• Conflicting: A wants maximum payment, B wants minimum payment -- negotiation zone needed

Barriers to Resolution

Barrier	Description	Mitigation
Reactive devaluation	Offers seem less attractive because they come from the other side	Have mediator propose options
Anchoring	First number distorts all subsequent negotiation	Use objective criteria to anchor
Loss aversion	Parties feel losses more than equivalent gains	Frame in terms of gains vs current state
Principal-agent	Party's representative may have different interests	Ensure decision-makers participate
Information asymmetry	One party knows more than the other	Structured disclosure through mediator

---

Legal Analysis

For each disputed issue, assess:

Factor	Assessment
Applicable law	Statute, regulation, contract term, or common law
Strength of claim	Strong (>70%) / Moderate (40-70%) / Weak (<40%)
Key uncertainties	Factual disputes, legal ambiguities, evidentiary gaps
Likely trial outcome	Best case, worst case, most likely
Damages range	If claimant prevails, likely award range
Costs to trial	Attorney fees, expert fees, opportunity costs per party
Time to resolution	Months/years to trial and potential appeal

---

Settlement Strategy

BATNA / WATNA Analysis

Metric	Party A	Party B
Best Alternative (BATNA)	Win at trial, recover full claim + costs	Win at trial, pay nothing + recover costs
Worst Alternative (WATNA)	Lose at trial, recover nothing, pay own costs	Lose at trial, pay full claim + costs
Most Likely Alternative	Partial recovery minus litigation costs	Partial liability minus litigation costs
Litigation cost estimate	$X over Y months	$X over Y months
Net expected value	(Probability x Award) - Litigation costs	-(Probability x Award) - Litigation costs

ZOPA Identification

The Zone of Possible Agreement exists when Party A's minimum acceptable settlement is less than Party B's maximum they would pay.

Party A minimum = Expected trial value - litigation costs - risk discount
Party B maximum = Expected trial liability + litigation costs + risk premium

ZOPA exists when: A minimum < B maximum
ZOPA range: [A minimum ... B maximum]

Settlement Scenarios

Scenario	Description	When Appropriate
Straightforward Compromise	Split the difference on monetary claims	Simple disputes with clear monetary value
Interest-Based Solution	Address underlying interests beyond money	Ongoing relationships, non-monetary concerns
Package Deal	Bundle monetary and non-monetary elements	Complex disputes with multiple issues and interests

---

Reference Guides

Guide	Path	Description
Mediation Process	references/mediation_process.md	12 stages of mediation with roles and techniques
Negotiation Concepts	references/negotiation_concepts.md	BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA, interest-based negotiation, barriers

---

Workflows

Workflow 1: Full Mediation Preparation

1. Gather dispute information (Mode 1 or Mode 2).
2. Run scripts/dispute_analyzer.py on available materials.
3. Complete the 6-section Core Analysis Framework.
4. Run scripts/settlement_calculator.py with dispute parameters.
5. Prepare opening statement and settlement proposals.
6. Complete Mediation Readiness Checklist.
7. Validation: All 6 sections complete, BATNA/ZOPA calculated, proposals prepared.

Workflow 2: Quick Settlement Range

1. Identify claimed amount, litigation costs, and success probability.
2. Run scripts/settlement_calculator.py with parameters.
3. Review ZOPA range and three scenarios.
4. Adjust parameters for sensitivity analysis.
5. Validation: Settlement range established with supporting rationale.

Workflow 3: Multi-Party Mediation

1. Map all parties and their relationships.
2. Run dispute analysis for each bilateral relationship.
3. Identify coalition possibilities and shared interests.
4. Calculate settlement ranges for each party pair.
5. Design package deals that address all parties' core interests.
6. Validation: Each party pair analyzed, coalitions mapped, package options developed.

---

Troubleshooting

Problem	Likely Cause	Resolution
ZOPA appears negative	Parties' expectations unrealistic or litigation costs understated	Reality-test each party's BATNA; increase cost estimates
Cannot identify interests	Parties stuck on positions	Use "why" questions; explore consequences of winning/losing
Power imbalance distorting negotiation	Resource or information asymmetry	Recommend process adjustments; structured information sharing
Decision-maker absent	Representative lacks authority	Adjourn until decision-maker available; confirm authority in advance
Emotional barriers dominant	Unresolved relational issues	Address emotional interests first; consider apology or acknowledgment
Multi-party complexity	Too many bilateral dynamics	Break into sub-mediations; use single-text procedure

---

Success Criteria

Criterion	Target
Dispute issues identified	All contested issues listed with positions
Interests mapped	At least 3 interests per party, categorized
Legal strength assessed	Each issue rated with rationale
BATNA/WATNA calculated	Both parties' alternatives quantified
ZOPA identified	Settlement range established or confirmed negative
Settlement scenarios	Minimum 3 scenarios with rationale
Readiness checklist	All items addressed before mediation

---

Scope & Limitations

In scope: Dispute analysis, interest mapping, settlement calculation, mediation preparation, negotiation strategy.

Out of scope: Acting as mediator, providing legal advice, predicting judicial outcomes with certainty, drafting settlement agreements, representing parties.

Disclaimer: This skill provides an analytical framework for mediation preparation. It does not constitute legal advice. Settlement calculations are estimates based on inputs provided and should be validated by qualified counsel.

---

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Better Approach
Positional bargaining only	Focuses on what parties demand, ignoring why they want it; leaves value on the table	Map interests first, then generate options that satisfy underlying needs
Ignoring litigation costs in settlement math	Parties anchor on the claim amount without factoring in costs to pursue it; produces unrealistic expectations	Always include full litigation costs (fees, time, opportunity cost) in BATNA calculation
Assuming equal bargaining power	Power imbalances distort negotiation; weaker party may accept unfavorable terms under pressure	Identify imbalances early; recommend process protections (separate caucuses, information sharing, independent advice)
Skipping emotional interests	Emotional needs (respect, acknowledgment, fairness) often drive dispute more than money; ignoring them produces impasse	Include emotional and relational interests in the analysis alongside legal and commercial interests

---

Tool Reference

Tool	Input	Output	Use Case
dispute_analyzer.py	Dispute description text	Structured analysis with parties, issues, interests, timeline	First-pass dispute structuring
settlement_calculator.py	Dispute parameters (amounts, costs, probability)	BATNA/WATNA, ZOPA, 3 settlement scenarios	Quantitative settlement range analysis