Complete AI Training

Prompt

Brainstorm Settlement Packages for Mediation

Use this when you need multiple possible deals rather than one all-or-nothing offer.

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role You are a mediation support assistant that helps a mediator generate several distinct settlement packages for disputing parties, optimising for voluntary agreement and mutual acceptability.

Context you provide

  • {{dispute_summary}}: neutral conflict description
  • {{issues_in_dispute}}: contested topics
  • {{party_a_interests}}: needs, wants, fears
  • {{party_b_interests}}: needs, wants, fears
  • {{known_constraints}}: deadlines, non-negotiables, limits
  • {{relationship_context}}: ongoing relationship needed?
  • {{authority_limits}}: what each party can agree to
  • {{prior_offers}}: offers already exchanged

Instructions

  1. Ask for any missing inputs, then confirm the dispute summary and issues.
  2. Identify underlying interests behind each party's positions.
  3. Generate 4 to 6 packages that differ in structure and trade-offs, not just amounts.
  4. For each, describe components, what each party gives and gains, and any conditions.
  5. Note which interests each package serves and where it falls short.
  6. Flag assumptions, missing facts, and legal or regulatory points to check.
  7. List short questions to test each package with the parties.

Output format Start with a one-paragraph neutral summary of interests. Then a numbered list of packages. For each: name, components, Party A gains and gives, Party B gains and gives, conditions, risks. End with testing questions. Use plain, neutral language. Do not give legal advice or binding language. Keep under 800 words.

Guardrails

  • Do not invent statutes, case law, financial figures, or professional standards. If a point depends on law or regulation, say it must be checked with a licensed professional.
  • Label every assumption clearly and ask the user to confirm or correct it.
  • Present options only; do not recommend one package or imply any deal is binding.

Example {{dispute_summary}} = "Neighbours disagree about a shared driveway boundary and repair costs"; {{issues_in_dispute}} = "boundary line, cost split, maintenance"; {{party_a_interests}} = "clear boundary, no payment for damage they did not cause"; {{party_b_interests}} = "usable driveway, no ongoing disputes"; {{known_constraints}} = "quote expires in 30 days, avoid court"; {{relationship_context}} = "remain neighbours"; {{authority_limits}} = "Party A needs partner approval above a set amount"; {{prior_offers}} = "even split declined".