How to use the Conflict Resolution Conversation Guide.
A conflict guide should identify shared goals and clarify each account without deciding who is right from one side alone.
Make the workflow fit your task.
Identify the shared goal and invite each side to describe the process and impact in their own terms. Separate disputed facts from agreed needs, then define the decision or handoff that requires resolution.
- What you provide
- Parties' stated positions and shared constraints.
- What you get
- Neutral discussion plan without assigning unsupported blame.
See the input and the result.
Illustrative input and output · a teaching example, not a live WebAct run
Example input
Two teams disagree about who approves catalog changes. Provide a conversation guide without assigning authority not supplied.
Completed example
Opening: "We share the goal of accurate catalog updates. Let's make the approval handoff explicit." Ask each team: "What do you currently receive, review and approve?" Compare: "Where do our descriptions differ, and what does the current policy say?" Resolve: "Who has authority to confirm the owner, and what should happen while that decision is pending?" Close by recording the confirmed decision and remaining questions; do not assume either team already owns approval.
Load this input into the prompt, then copy it to WebAct to try the task. Your result may differ from the illustration.
Decisions and troubleshooting.
Can the guide decide who is right from one party's notes?
No. It can organize that account and identify questions, but the other side's evidence and perspective remain missing.
Why does the discussion keep returning to blame?
Bring it back to the shared outcome and specific responsibility or process gap. Agree an observable change rather than a character judgment.
Try it with your own source.
Replace the example with your material in the task prompt. Keep the requirements you need, then copy the task into WebAct.
Customize and copy the task ↑