The analytical frameworks used by professional mediators, negotiators, and conflict analysts — made accessible to everyone facing a difficult situation.
Built by conflict resolution practitioners · Grounded in established theory · Designed for everyone dealing with conflict
Conflict has a grammar. Power has a structure. Resolution has a logic. For decades, the frameworks to see this clearly — interest-based negotiation, escalation modelling, game theory, narrative analysis — were accessible only to trained practitioners.
Compass changes that. Feed it any conflictual situation. It extracts actors, relationships, and the events that shaped the dynamic. Then it applies the full canon of conflict resolution theory to generate analyses that reveal what is really happening, who holds leverage, what each party truly needs, and which pathways to resolution remain open.
For everyone dealing with a difficult situation — not just experts.
What is really driving this conflict? Surface the interests and needs hidden beneath stated positions, using the Onion Model of IBN.
Visualize power, alignment, escalation trajectory, coalition patterns, and structural leverage — in ways that language alone cannot reveal.
Identify each party's BATNA, game-theoretic equilibria, narrative frames, and the resolution pathways that are actually within reach.
From raw documents to structured intelligence in minutes.
Paste any document, email thread, or case summary. AI extracts actors, events, claims, and relationships — mapped to the Conflict Grammar ontology.
Apply purpose-built analytical tools: power mapping, game theory, escalation forecasting, BATNA analysis, neutrality auditing, and more.
AI-generated resolution pathways grounded in established theory. Negotiation playbooks and exportable professional briefs for every situation.
Compass embeds decades of conflict resolution scholarship into every AI-generated analysis. You do not need to know the theory to benefit from it — but it is always working in the background, structuring what the AI sees and how it reasons.
Fisher & Ury, 1981
Positions hide interests, which hide needs. The Onion Model surfaces what each party truly wants — beneath what they say they want.
Influence × Alignment
Mapping influence against alignment reveals swing actors, blocking coalitions, and leverage points that remain invisible to unstructured observation.
Friedrich Glasl, 1982
Conflict moves through 9 predictable stages across 3 phases. The current stage determines which interventions are still viable — and which have been foreclosed.
Prisoner's Dilemma · Chicken · Stag Hunt
Classifying conflict structure reveals each party's rational moves, the conditions for defection, and where cooperative equilibria become self-reinforcing.
Goffman · Lederach · Burton
Every party constructs a legitimizing story. Mapping competing narratives uncovers identity stakes, moral frameworks, and the symbolic framing of grievances.
Fisher & Ury · Mnookin
The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement defines the walk-away threshold. The Zone of Possible Agreement shows where mutually acceptable deals can land.
Systems Thinking · Burton
Conflicts are rarely caused by individuals alone. Structural drivers, institutional constraints, historical patterns, and feedback loops explain what people cannot.
Professional Standards
Rigorous analysis requires auditing for representational gaps, language bias, and perspective blind spots before any conclusion can be trusted.
Conflict resolution is both an art and a science. The science — the frameworks, the models, the analytical structure — is what AI can systematize. The art remains yours.
Conflict has structure regardless of the domain. The same analytical frameworks apply.
Build structured case files, map party dynamics, and generate analysis-backed resolution proposals
Investigate team conflicts, founder disputes, and organizational restructuring with analytical rigour
Bring structure to inheritance conflicts, divorce mediation prep, and family business succession
Map stakeholder positions in development disputes, planning conflicts, and public participation processes
Analyse contract disputes, regulatory conflicts, M&A integration tensions, and arbitration strategy
Anyone navigating a difficult situation — professional, interpersonal, or communal — deserves analytical clarity
Before any analysis can run, a conflict must be structured. The Conflict Grammar provides 8 universal concepts — primitives — that map any conflictual situation with precision. They are the shared vocabulary between human analyst and AI, and the ontological foundation of every tool in Compass.
Any party with stakes in the conflict — individual, group, or institution
A stated position, demand, or assertion made by a party
The underlying need or motivation behind a stated position
A real limit on what a party can accept, do, or offer
Power one party holds to influence the behaviour of another
A binding agreement, stated obligation, or credible promise
A dated action or development that changed the conflict trajectory
The legitimizing story a party constructs about the conflict
These 8 primitives are not a proprietary invention — they are a distillation of concepts that appear, in various forms, across the foundational literature of conflict resolution: Fisher & Ury's interest model, Lederach's relational framework, Burton's human needs theory, and Glasl's process model. Compass formalizes them into a structured ontology that AI can reason over.
Start free. Scale as your practice grows.