Explanation of the 'double paper' due 29 April

The paper is 'double' only in the sense the most prefer to staple the two papers together when submitting them.  You must write two very different papers, the first generally being longer than the second, about the negotiating exercise.

First paper.  What accounts for the progress that "I" made (and didn't make) toward achieving the objectives set out in my negotiating instructions?

Write this from the perspective of  "you" as negotiator in the exercise.  Most people find it convenient to present the analysis in the form of a memo to your (unseeen) superior in the exercise.  As an attempt to explain what happened, you will likely find useful some of the scholarly literature on topics such as negotiating tactics, cognitive biases, and the like.  Do so in substantive footnotes, since the "you" in the exercise likely knows little about such issues.  You will certainly wish to refer to events which occurred in the course of the exercise.  Try to be specific about their time and place.  Don't ignore negotiation and other contacts which occurred between the opening and closing Sundays.

 Second paper.  How successful was the exercise?

Write this from the perspective of the "universal observer," someone looking at the exercise from a distance.  To answer the question, first develop a clear criterion for success: what were the purposes of the exercise? what were its strengths and weaknesses?  what important factors did it exclude or include in a distorted way?  What realistic or unrealistic behaviors did you witness, or create?  Were levels of knowledge, engagement and activity appropriate?  Many other related questions may be posed.   As in  the first paper, draw upon the literature of negotiation as required.  I am particularly interested in recommendations which you may offer to improve such exercises in the future.