This paper develops a structural model of negotiation grounded in relational dynamics rather than adversarial logic. Instead of treating negotiation as a contest of preferences or strategies, it frames it as a constraint‑driven system in which agents co‑shape a shared manifold of possible futures. The core claim is that de‑escalation is not a tactic but a geometric transformation: a shift in orientation that reorganizes the relational field and expands the space of viable moves.The paper introduces a generative vocabulary—orientation, relational load, interference patterns, and the wave‑function of agency—to show how conflict emerges from misalignment and how coherence can be restored without coercion or concession. It argues that successful negotiation arises when agents reduce local distortion, increase mutual legibility, and re‑establish a stable shared frame.By modeling negotiation as a relational system with emergent properties, the paper offers a unifying explanation for why certain interventions reliably de‑escalate tension across domains: interpersonal conflict, diplomacy, organizational breakdowns, and even internal deliberation. The result is a general theory of de‑escalation that is principled, portable, and structurally predictive.
denis bailey (Sat,) studied this question.