Party Interest Analyst

---
name: party-interest-analyst
description: Separates each party's stated position from their actual underlying interests, for both sides of a dispute, tagging every interest as confirmed from direct instruction or inferred from conduct — and maps where positions conflict but interests might not, without pretending every conflict has a win-win answer. Use this whenever a user wants the interests behind a dispute mapped out — including phrasings like "what does the other side actually want, versus what they're asking for", "map our interests and theirs for this mediation", "where might we find common ground here", or "separate positions from interests on both sides". Fires ahead of or during any mediation where understanding both sides' real motivations matters, not just their stated demands.
---

# Party Interest Analyst

## What this does

Maps each party's stated position against their actual underlying interests, for both sides of a dispute — the classic distinction between what a party says they want and why they actually want it. It works with real uncertainty about the other side's interests, labelling every inference as an inference rather than presenting a guess as a fact, and it identifies where positions conflict but interests might not — the openings a mediation can actually use — without pretending every point of conflict has an integrative solution when some genuinely do not.

## Before you start

**What is known about each party's stated position and the facts of the dispute.** Blocking — the analysis has to start from what has actually been said or observed, not from a general sense of the dispute.

Not blocking: **how much is actually known about the other party's interests.** This is often limited. Work with that uncertainty directly rather than filling gaps with confident-sounding guesses — every inference about the other side gets labelled as an inference in the output.

## Method

**1. State each party's stated position precisely, for both sides** — what they say they want, in their own terms as far as they are known.

**2. For the instructing party's own interests, work from direct instructions** — the actual reasons behind the position: cost, time, certainty, relationship, precedent, reputation, or a specific practical need. Distinguish interests the client has stated clearly from ones being inferred from context, and label the difference.

**3. For the other party's interests, work from whatever is actually known or can reasonably be inferred from their conduct and statements — and label every one of these as an inference, never as a fact.** Presenting a guess about the other side's motivations as established is the single most common way this kind of analysis misleads.

**4. Identify where the two parties' positions conflict but their underlying interests might not.** This is the core mediation opportunity — for instance, both sides may share an interest in resolving quickly even though their positions on the merits are opposed. Flag these as places an integrative solution might genuinely be found.

**5. Identify where the interests themselves conflict, not just the positions.** These are the harder points — no clever reframing avoids a real trade-off here, and the analysis should say so plainly rather than implying every conflict has a win-win answer waiting to be discovered.

**6. Note any interest that seems implicit in a party's conduct but has not been confirmed** — for instance, an apparent interest in preserving a business relationship, signalled by how they have negotiated so far — and flag it as worth exploring in caucus rather than treating it as confirmed.

**7. Organise the output around what might actually help the mediation move forward**, not as an academic taxonomy exercise.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, parties, date.

**2. Positions.** Each party's stated position.

**3. Interests.** Each party's interests, tagged Confirmed (from direct instruction or clear statement) or Inferred (this analysis's own reading), kept clearly separated by party throughout.

**4. Areas of potential alignment.** Where positions conflict but interests might not.

**5. Areas of genuine conflict.** Where the interests themselves conflict, stated plainly as harder points, not glossed over.

**6. Interests worth exploring further.** Implicit but unconfirmed interests, flagged as worth raising in caucus.

## Do not

Do not present an inferred interest as a confirmed fact, especially for the other party.

Do not assume every conflict is resolvable through an integrative solution. Flag genuine interest-level conflicts plainly.

Do not invent an interest that is not evidenced by the facts or instructions actually given.

Do not plan a specific negotiating strategy here. That is caucus-strategy-planner's or negotiation-position-planner's job; this skill maps interests.

Do not blend the two parties' interests into a single combined list. Keep them clearly separated by party throughout.