{"id":19687,"plugin_id":"plugins_6a9bd8b75acc81919eb7c673307385b8","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:15:43.154Z","digest":"a1adf435cf049cfc8ce6b7460daf67082930b301e04b4cfd823d0e7598ce0a2f","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Use when decision authority, organisational influence, policy ownership, escalation route, allies, meeting sequence, timing, channel, or other negotiation-process choices may affect the outcome.","included_files":[],"name":"stakeholder-process","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: stakeholder-process\ndescription: Use when decision authority, organisational influence, policy ownership, escalation route, allies, meeting sequence, timing, channel, or other negotiation-process choices may affect the outcome.\n---\n\n# Stakeholder and Process\n\n## Overview\n\nApply Freeman's **Who** and Setting/Scheduling analysis to identify who can decide, who can influence, and how negotiation sequence/process may change the outcome. [F03]\n\n**Interface:** accept `schemas/SKILL_REQUEST.md`; return `schemas/SKILL_RESPONSE.md`. Never persist state.\n\n## Core distinctions\n\n- **Formal authority** is not the same as practical influence.\n- The **visible contact** is not automatically the decision-maker.\n- “Company policy” is evidence that someone stated a policy; its binding effect, owner and exception route require support.\n- Stakeholder stance, hawk/dove labels, allies and coalitions are evidence-sensitive, not personality guesses.\n\n## Method\n\n1. **Map the decision chain.** Identify known decision-makers, approvers, advisers, influencers and principals; preserve uncertainty.\n2. **Test authority claims.** For policy/approval constraints, ask who owns, interprets or can waive the constraint when that answer can change strategy.\n3. **Assess influence.** Distinguish formal power, practical influence, likely stance and relationship to the visible counterpart. Do not invent internal politics.\n4. **Choose the route.** Compare staying with the current contact, ally-first engagement, direct escalation or another counterpart where supported.\n5. **Assess engagement risk.** A more senior person is not automatically a better target; consider bypass risk, relationship damage and loss of cooperation.\n6. **Design process.** Where material, assess channel, timing, deadlines, agenda, sequence, private/public setting and who should attend. [F03]\n7. **Return implications.** Propose evidence-backed stakeholder/process patches, questions and warnings. Set `material_change_candidate` when authority evidence materially changes strategy.\n\n## Safeguards\n\n- Do not treat hierarchy as a complete influence map.\n- Do not label stakeholders supportive/resistant or hawk/dove without evidence.\n- Do not invent allies, coalitions, discretionary powers or policy exceptions.\n- Separate a deadline stated by the counterpart from a verified hard deadline.\n- Detailed BATNA/leverage belongs to F03; package design to F02; difficult-conversation technique to F05; final wording to F07.\n\n## Stop condition\n\nStop when the orchestrator knows the most credible decision route and process for the immediate move, with material authority uncertainty visible.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}