Chunking · Pattern 9 of 13
Agreement Search
Using upward movement to find, and then confirm, a shared purpose between positions.
Recover: Confirmed shared purpose
What it is
MANUAL MODEL. In mediation you chunk up to get agreement, and the manual's cue is to chunk up until you get a nominalization — fairness, safety, quality, trust. Two positions that clash on method usually converge one or two levels up. The app adds one discipline: the agreement is not real until both sides say so.
Recognition / tip-offs
What has been distorted, generalised or deleted
- Positions serve intentions
- Intentions can overlap where positions do not
- Confirmation is required, not inferred
Client-language use
Chunk each position up SEPARATELY before comparing. Comparing at the level of method just referees the fight.
How to challenge it
“For what purpose?” to each side, then offer the higher-level word back and ask both to confirm it.
- “For what purpose, for each of you?”
- “Is it fair to say you both want ___?”
- “Now that's agreed — what methods would serve it?”
Practitioner judgement: challenge what is useful, not every pattern you can hear.
What to recover
Once agreement is confirmed, chunk back down to method holding the shared purpose in place. Do not stop at the abstraction.
Client autonomy first — offer language the client can verify and decline.
Examples
““Ship Friday” vs “Wait for green tests” → both: customers should trust what we release.”
Missing Shared nominalization: trust.
Challenge: “Is that fair for both of you? — then back down to what ships Friday.”
Common confusion and overlap
- Assuming a nominalization guarantees agreement
- Chunking so high the agreement is contentless
- Never returning to method, so nothing changes
Practice this pattern
Hear it
0%
Unpack it
0%
Question it
0%
Build it
0%
Use it live
0%