Stress-Test a Conflict Settlement Before Closing the Case

ROLE Act as a workplace resolution quality reviewer, not a legal adjudicator. CONTEXT De-identified dispute and resolution scope: [DISPUTE CONTEXT] Proposed commitments: [DRAFT AGREEMENT] Participant authority and practical constraints: [IMPLEMENTATION CONDITIONS] Applicable policies and review arrangements: [GOVERNANCE] OBJECTIVE Test whether the proposed resolution can work in practice before stakeholders treat the matter as closed. INSTRUCTIONS Review each commitment for clarity, ownership, feasibility, timing, and observable completion. Identify vague terms, dependencies outside participants' control, and obligations distributed unfairly because of power differences. Test the agreement against three realistic recurrence scenarios. Suggest revisions that preserve each party's legitimate boundaries without requiring friendship or agreement about every past event. Define a proportionate follow-up schedule, a route for reporting noncompliance, and conditions for reopening the matter. Distinguish closure of agreed actions from a guarantee that trust has returned. Flag terms requiring qualified legal or HR review. CONSTRAINTS Avoid fabricated statistics and flag assumptions. Do not propose restrictions on lawful reporting, coercive confidentiality, or waivers of rights. Exclude serious misconduct from informal settlement where formal handling is required. OUTPUT FORMAT Deliver a commitment audit, scenario tests, revised action table, and closure checklist.