Browse by subject:
FRAMEWORKPaper #71
The Hollow Win
Written for the Harvard Program on Negotiation (PON) audience. The practitioner’s entry point to the entire System Asset Pricing Model program. Replaces Ury-Fisher’s two-by-two outcome matrix with an eight-outcome three-dimensional classification. Seven case studies — FX-Fixing, Volkswagen, Boeing 737 MAX, Wells Fargo, the Lysine cartel, algorithmic collusion, and leaded gasoline — demonstrate that the most common negotiation outcome is invisible to every bilateral framework. No equations by design. Connects to the 61 studied domain papers, the seven-lane Conflictoring protocol, Decision Accounting, and the working aggregate welfare-cost estimate.
THEOREM TYPE
Framework
physically/biologically binding
SOURCE STATUS
Summary + deck generated
verified by paper record
OPEN HTML DECK ↗Deck mode is an on-site reading view, not a PowerPoint download.
Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptionsFalsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
"Getting to Yes taught the world to find mutual gains. It forgot to ask whether the system survived the deal." — Written for the Harvard Program on Negotiation. The missing third dimension in sixty years of negotiation theory.
KEY FINDINGS
THE HOLLOW WIN
The Ury-Fisher taxonomy maps outcomes to four cells (win/lose × win/lose). The Missing System Theory taxonomy maps outcomes to eight cells (system preserved/degraded × A gains/loses × B gains/loses). The Hollow Win — both parties gain, system degrades — is invisible in the 2×2 matrix. No bilateral evaluation can distinguish a Hollow Win from a genuine Win-Win-Win. The two-by-two matrix is a structural exclusion of the system dimension, not an approximation.
PLAIN ENGLISH
Getting to Yes asks: did both sides gain? If yes, it is a good deal. The Hollow Win asks: did the system survive? If not, the deal is catastrophic regardless of what both sides received. The Benchmark Rate traders gained. The counterparty banks gained. The global benchmark infrastructure — $400 trillion in notional value — was corrupted. Standard analysis calls this 'cooperation.' It is system destruction with bilateral efficiency.
EVIDENCE & LIMITATIONS
- Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptions
- Falsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
REFERENCES / CITATION STATUS
Reference counts for this manuscript have not been published yet. Treat its citations as unverified until a source list is available.
Loading curated reference section…
SOURCE QUESTIONS
SSRN not yet postedDeck ↗
WHY THIS MATTERS
For the economist
A structural claim about when bilateral optimization degrades the shared system. Read the formal statement and its stated axioms.
For the regulator
The constraint is physical or biological, so disclosure alone will not internalize it. The policy lever is to bound exposure, not to price it away.
For the executive
This is where a privately efficient decision can degrade the system the business depends on. The governance question is which decision records would make that system cost visible before it is normalized.
For the teacher
An on-site HTML deck and the expanded curriculum cover the argument, the evidence, and the measurement. Use the deck as a self-contained class session, then route deeper through the 45-50h core course or 100+h full curriculum.
For the affected community
In plain terms: who gains from the current arrangement, who pays for it, and what rule change would alter that split. The summary states each without jargon.
© 2026 Erik Postnieks · Independent Researcher · Salt Lake City