A position is more than a preference
Match each part of a stakeholder position to the question it answers.
Retrieve without defending
Return to Mara and Ivo’s disagreement about the old station office.
Give each position in two sentences: priority plus reason, then constraint plus revision condition.
- Do not say which speaker is right yet.
- Your partner may correct the summary using the source texts from Lesson 2.
A challenge begins with an acceptable summary
A fictional forum exchange
Mara: I favour the workshop because a dependable place to repair things could support practical exchange between generations. I accept that the volunteer timetable is still uncertain. I would reconsider if we could not publish stable opening hours.
Ivo: Let me check that I have your position. You are prioritising dependable practical activity, not arguing that a workshop has already reduced waste. Your condition is whether the organisers can sustain the timetable. Is that fair?
Mara: Yes. That is a version I could sign.
Ivo: Then my challenge is about whose need the timetable can reveal. A reliable service may still exclude people whose working hours prevent them from attending. I would prioritise a supported study room and speak to non-users before the review.
Mara: So your point is not that reliability is unimportant. You think a stable trial needs evidence from people outside the room, and you would change your view if the support could not be staffed. Is that accurate?
Ivo: Almost. Staffing is one condition. The other is whether users complete the tasks they came to do; attendance alone would not persuade me.
Mara: Accepted. In that case, we disagree about the main activity, but we share two design principles: a schedule people can rely on and a review that includes outcomes and barriers to access.
Identify what makes the exchange genuinely multi-perspective.
1. Why does Ivo separate waste reduction from Mara’s actual position?
2. What does Mara do when Ivo says “Almost”?
3. What becomes possible only after both summaries are accepted?
Represent, verify, then respond
The perspective handoff
| Move | Useful language | What it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| Frame | From your perspective… / Your priority is… | Confusing somebody’s standpoint with a universal claim. |
| Represent | You are arguing that… because…, while recognising… | Reducing a position to one preference. |
| Verify | Is that fair? / Is that a version you could sign? | Answering a position the other person does not hold. |
| Repair | Almost. The part I would add is… | Turning a correction into a new argument. |
| Respond | The part I accept is… What remains unresolved is… | Treating partial agreement as total agreement or total rejection. |
| Test movement | Would you accept X provided that Y? What would change your view? | A compromise that hides rather than resolves a constraint. |
Restore the order of one complete perspective handoff.
- Is that a version of your position you could sign?
- From your perspective, the first priority is a service people can plan around.
- Yes, provided that usefulness includes what participants achieved rather than attendance alone.
- You are arguing for a stable timetable because repeated changes would discourage participation.
- Then the part I accept is the stable schedule; what remains unresolved is which outcome the trial should prioritise.
- At the same time, you recognise that dependability alone would not prove the activity was useful.
Build a response that still contains the other view
One word per gap. Complete the language for a perspective handoff.
From your , a reliable timetable comes first.
If I understand you , you are not claiming that reliability guarantees success.
Is that a version you could ?
. The part I would add is evidence from non-users.
The part I is the need for stable hours.
What remains is the main purpose of the room.
Would you accept a workshop that the review included barriers to access?
What would your view?
Choose the response that preserves the stakeholder’s real position.
1. A volunteer coordinator says, “I support the workshop if we can guarantee two staffed sessions.” Which summary is fair?
2. A late-shift resident says, “A stable timetable is useful only if one session is accessible to people like me.” What is the real challenge?
3. The original speaker rejects your summary. What comes next?
The station-office forum
The signable-summary rule. Nobody may challenge a position until its speaker accepts the summary. The speaker may say yes, almost or no. Almost and no require a repair and a second check.
The forum must recommend one main use for a six-month trial — shared workshop or supported study room — or state the precise evidence still needed before choosing. It must also publish the strongest argument against its recommendation.
Stage 1 · Alone · 4 minutes · Build a stakeholder position
Choose one role: workshop advocate; study-room advocate; volunteer coordinator; late-shift resident; access advocate; or neighbourhood treasurer.
Prepare four lines that another person could accurately represent.
- Priority: the improvement your role wants first.
- Reason: the intended benefit, without inventing a result.
- Constraint: staffing, access, cost, dependability or evidence — choose the one that truly limits your role.
- Revision condition: the evidence or arrangement that could change your position.
- Use the annotated paragraph from Lesson 4 if useful. Any cleft, inversion, hedge or modal perfect still needs the discourse job written beside it.
Stage 2 · Groups · 15 minutes · Represent before responding
Groups of three to five, with different roles. One member keeps the signable-summary record.
Complete two rounds, then test one possible recommendation.
- Round 1 · Positions: each stakeholder has 45 seconds. The next speaker gives priority, reason, constraint and revision condition, then asks whether the summary is signable.
- Round 2 · Challenges: respond only after acceptance. Begin with The part I accept is… and What remains unresolved is…. The original speaker may correct any lost qualification.
- Movement test: propose one conditional agreement: Would you accept ___ provided that ___? The condition must address a stated constraint rather than add a vague promise.
- Language observer: record one accurate hedge, one clear reference chain and any marked structure whose effect the group cannot explain. Do not count structures as points.
Stage 3 · Groups · 6 minutes · Publish the decision record
Write a 90–120-word note that every stakeholder is willing to sign.
Record the recommendation without erasing the disagreement that produced it.
- State the recommended main use, or the exact unresolved evidence that prevents a choice.
- Give the intended benefit and the practical constraint. Keep proposals, known facts and possible outcomes distinct.
- Represent the strongest opposing argument in language its stakeholder accepts.
- End with a review condition: what will be measured, whose experience will be sought and what could justify changing direction.
- Read the note aloud once. Use thought groups to separate recommendation, concession and condition. Save it for the error review in Lesson 6.
What changed after accurate representation?
Choose the principle demonstrated by the forum.
1. What does a stakeholder’s signature confirm?
2. A conditional compromise is useful when…
3. What makes an unresolved outcome acceptable?
Update the evidence and error logs
Use the observer’s notes and the signed decision record.
Save one successful perspective handoff and one language problem for Lesson 6.
- For the handoff, record the first summary, the correction and the accepted version.
- For the language problem, preserve the original wording. Do not repair it from memory later.
The disagreement you can now state fairly
Exit ticket
Lesson 6 uses the language produced across the first five lessons.
Complete two sentences: “The part of another perspective I accept is…” and “What remains unresolved is…”.
- Keep the stakeholder’s qualification and revision condition in your answer.
- Bring the Lesson 1 baseline, Lesson 3 drafts, Lesson 4 annotated paragraph, today’s decision record and the accumulated error log.
- For optional informal input, notice one moment in the unit’s podcast or talk where a speaker represents another view before responding. If access is unavailable, use today’s forum exchange.