1. Decide whether to work through analyzing the conflicting information together with your counterpart or separately first. (Each has its own set of pros and cons) 2. Write out a list with each key piece of conflicting information. 3. For each item, create a horizontal chain (kind of like a supply chain, but for information). You would take the piece of information and map it along the spectrum of raw ingredients to finished product. - To determine this, keep asking "how did you come to that conclusion" / "how do you know that" until you get to the first principles' node, where that question can no longer be asked. 4. Use your analysis/mapping as a basis for asking your counterpart clarifying questions. The goal is surgical precision.

In complex negotiations, navigating conflicting information requires a systematic approach. I prioritize source credibility, focusing on insights from proven, reliable stakeholders. In Darden Restaurants’ defense against Starboard Value, I assessed input from financial advisors, internal teams, and external experts to ensure accuracy. I realign frequently with core objectives to filter out distractions, keeping the negotiation focused on critical goals. Scenario mapping also aids clarity, as it did when coordinating Darden’s multi-party legal strategy under high-stakes scrutiny. Engaging key stakeholders and pausing to fully process information enables more strategic responses and brings clarity to complex negotiations.

To handle conflicting information in negotiations, I would first validate data directly with key stakeholders, ensuring clarity. Then, I’d isolate core issues and align them with project goals, identifying any overlaps. Finally, I’d facilitate a transparent discussion focused on common objectives, aiming to resolve conflicts while staying adaptable to ensure project success.

Conflicting information can complicate negotiations, it is important 2 understand d requirement first 1. Discuss with stakeholders to gather insights on project history, past challenges, and expectations to shape our strategy. 2. Review existing contracts to identify opportunities for commercial adjustments, focusing on areas like payment terms, consumer pricing index and other relevant clauses. 3. Ensuring we have a clear understanding of the stakeholder’s priorities and expectations. 4. Collaborate with the vendor to explore mutually beneficial solutions. By consolidating and analyzing all relevant information, we can minimize conflicts, align interests, and drive successful outcomes.

I ask a lot of questions and encourage others to as well. There's that old saying, "don't make assumptions because it makes an a double s out of u and me"... WRONG, we should make assumptions, but we should test and verify them. Ask clarifying questions, ask multiple people, ask definitions of terms/words to make sure you have a clear common understanding. Give examples too. And while you're doing all this, be on the lookout for tells - are they being truthful/transparent or evasive???