├── .DS_Store ├── .gitignore ├── RAG_Engine ├── ContextualRetrievalTutorial.ipynb ├── __pycache__ │ ├── contextual_retriever.cpython-310.pyc │ └── contextual_retriever.cpython-312.pyc └── contextual_retriever.py ├── README.md ├── UI └── specter │ ├── .eslintrc.json │ ├── .gitignore │ ├── README.md │ ├── app │ ├── favicon.ico │ ├── fonts │ │ ├── GeistMonoVF.woff │ │ └── GeistVF.woff │ ├── globals.css │ ├── layout.tsx │ ├── page.tsx │ ├── runs │ │ └── page.tsx │ └── view-runs │ │ └── page.tsx │ ├── components.json │ ├── components │ ├── Layout.tsx │ ├── default-page.tsx │ ├── harvey-ui.tsx │ ├── run-page.tsx │ ├── runs-page.tsx │ ├── sidebar.tsx │ ├── specter-ui.tsx │ └── view-runs-page.tsx │ ├── lib │ ├── config.ts │ └── utils.ts │ ├── next.config.mjs │ ├── package-lock.json │ ├── package.json │ ├── postcss.config.mjs │ ├── tailwind.config.ts │ ├── tsconfig.json │ └── yarn.lock ├── cases └── negotiation_case.txt ├── precedents ├── generated_negotiation_case_1.txt ├── generated_negotiation_case_2.txt ├── generated_negotiation_case_3.txt ├── generated_negotiation_case_4.txt └── generated_negotiation_case_5.txt ├── requirements.txt ├── server.py ├── trajectories ├── __pycache__ │ ├── agent_self_implemented.cpython-310.pyc │ └── agent_self_implemented.cpython-312.pyc ├── agent_self_implemented.py ├── conversations │ ├── jsons │ │ ├── 1.json │ │ ├── 2.json │ │ ├── 3.json │ │ ├── 4.json │ │ ├── 5.json │ │ ├── 6.json │ │ ├── 7.json │ │ ├── 8.json │ │ └── 9.json │ └── txts │ │ ├── 0.txt │ │ ├── 1.txt │ │ ├── 2.txt │ │ ├── 3.txt │ │ ├── 4.txt │ │ ├── 5.txt │ │ ├── 6.txt │ │ ├── 7.txt │ │ ├── 8.txt │ │ └── 9.txt └── status.csv └── uploads ├── generated_negotiation_case_1.txt ├── generated_negotiation_case_2.txt ├── generated_negotiation_case_3.txt ├── generated_negotiation_case_4.txt └── generated_negotiation_case_5.txt /.DS_Store: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/.DS_Store -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /.gitignore: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | /.venv 2 | /.venv2 3 | *.pdf 4 | autogen_logs/ 5 | .env 6 | .cache/ 7 | .DS_Store 8 | **/pycache/ 9 | trajectories/conversations/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /RAG_Engine/ContextualRetrievalTutorial.ipynb: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | { 2 | "cells": [ 3 | { 4 | "cell_type": "code", 5 | "execution_count": 1, 6 | "metadata": { 7 | "id": "Drc1_qratH_W" 8 | }, 9 | "outputs": [ 10 | { 11 | "name": "stderr", 12 | "output_type": "stream", 13 | "text": [ 14 | "/Users/akshgarg/miniforge3/envs/router/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pinecone/data/index.py:1: TqdmWarning: IProgress not found. Please update jupyter and ipywidgets. See https://ipywidgets.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_install.html\n", 15 | " from tqdm.autonotebook import tqdm\n" 16 | ] 17 | } 18 | ], 19 | "source": [ 20 | "import hashlib\n", 21 | "import os\n", 22 | "import getpass\n", 23 | "from typing import List, Tuple\n", 24 | "from dotenv import load_dotenv\n", 25 | "from langchain.text_splitter import RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter\n", 26 | "from langchain.schema import Document\n", 27 | "from langchain.embeddings import OpenAIEmbeddings\n", 28 | "from langchain.vectorstores import FAISS\n", 29 | "from langchain_openai import ChatOpenAI\n", 30 | "from langchain.prompts import ChatPromptTemplate\n", 31 | "from rank_bm25 import BM25Okapi\n", 32 | "from pinecone import Pinecone, ServerlessSpec\n", 33 | "import concurrent\n", 34 | "from openai import OpenAI\n", 35 | "from contextual_retriever import ContextualRetrieval\n", 36 | "pc = Pinecone(api_key=os.getenv(\"PINECONE_API_KEY\"))" 37 | ] 38 | }, 39 | { 40 | "cell_type": "code", 41 | "execution_count": 2, 42 | "metadata": { 43 | "id": "enXaQdECttMI" 44 | }, 45 | "outputs": [], 46 | "source": [ 47 | "# Example financial document (approximately 5000 words, keyword-rich)\n", 48 | "document = \"\"\"\n", 49 | " Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) Financial Analysis and Market Overview - Q3 2023\n", 50 | "\n", 51 | " Executive Summary:\n", 52 | " Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) continues to lead the electric vehicle (EV) market, showcasing strong financial performance and strategic growth initiatives in Q3 2023. This comprehensive analysis delves into Tesla's financial statements, market position, and future outlook, providing investors and stakeholders with crucial insights into the company's performance and potential.\n", 53 | "\n", 54 | " 1. Financial Performance Overview:\n", 55 | "\n", 56 | " Revenue:\n", 57 | " Tesla reported total revenue of $23.35 billion in Q3 2023, marking a 9% increase year-over-year (YoY) from $21.45 billion in Q3 2022. The automotive segment remained the primary revenue driver, contributing $19.63 billion, up 5% YoY. Energy generation and storage revenue saw significant growth, reaching $1.56 billion, a 40% increase YoY.\n", 58 | "\n", 59 | " Profitability:\n", 60 | " Gross profit for Q3 2023 stood at $4.18 billion, with a gross margin of 17.9%. While this represents a decrease from the 25.1% gross margin in Q3 2022, it remains above industry averages. Operating income was $1.76 billion, resulting in an operating margin of 7.6%. Net income attributable to common stockholders was $1.85 billion, translating to diluted earnings per share (EPS) of $0.53.\n", 61 | "\n", 62 | " Cash Flow and Liquidity:\n", 63 | " Tesla's cash and cash equivalents at the end of Q3 2023 were $26.08 billion, a robust position that provides ample liquidity for ongoing operations and future investments. Free cash flow for the quarter was $0.85 billion, reflecting the company's ability to generate cash despite significant capital expenditures.\n", 64 | "\n", 65 | " 2. Operational Highlights:\n", 66 | "\n", 67 | " Production and Deliveries:\n", 68 | " Tesla produced 430,488 vehicles in Q3 2023, a 17% increase YoY. The Model 3/Y accounted for 419,666 units, while the Model S/X contributed 10,822 units. Total deliveries reached 435,059 vehicles, up 27% YoY, demonstrating strong demand and improved production efficiency.\n", 69 | "\n", 70 | " Manufacturing Capacity:\n", 71 | " The company's installed annual vehicle production capacity increased to over 2 million units across its factories in Fremont, Shanghai, Berlin-Brandenburg, and Texas. The Shanghai Gigafactory remains the highest-volume plant, with an annual capacity exceeding 950,000 units.\n", 72 | "\n", 73 | " Energy Business:\n", 74 | " Tesla's energy storage deployments grew by 90% YoY, reaching 4.0 GWh in Q3 2023. Solar deployments also increased by 48% YoY to 106 MW, reflecting growing demand for Tesla's energy products.\n", 75 | "\n", 76 | " 3. Market Position and Competitive Landscape:\n", 77 | "\n", 78 | " Global EV Market Share:\n", 79 | " Tesla maintained its position as the world's largest EV manufacturer by volume, with an estimated global market share of 18% in Q3 2023. However, competition is intensifying, particularly from Chinese manufacturers like BYD and established automakers accelerating their EV strategies.\n", 80 | "\n", 81 | " Brand Strength:\n", 82 | " Tesla's brand value continues to grow, ranked as the 12th most valuable brand globally by Interbrand in 2023, with an estimated brand value of $56.3 billion, up 4% from 2022.\n", 83 | "\n", 84 | " Technology Leadership:\n", 85 | " The company's focus on innovation, particularly in battery technology and autonomous driving capabilities, remains a key differentiator. Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) beta program has expanded to over 800,000 customers in North America, showcasing its advanced driver assistance systems.\n", 86 | "\n", 87 | " 4. Strategic Initiatives and Future Outlook:\n", 88 | "\n", 89 | " Product Roadmap:\n", 90 | " Tesla reaffirmed its commitment to launching the Cybertruck in 2023, with initial deliveries expected in Q4. The company also hinted at progress on a next-generation vehicle platform, aimed at significantly reducing production costs.\n", 91 | "\n", 92 | " Expansion Plans:\n", 93 | " Plans for a new Gigafactory in Mexico are progressing, with production expected to commence in 2025. This facility will focus on producing Tesla's next-generation vehicles and expand the company's North American manufacturing footprint.\n", 94 | "\n", 95 | " Battery Production:\n", 96 | " Tesla continues to ramp up its in-house battery cell production, with 4680 cells now being used in Model Y vehicles produced at the Texas Gigafactory. The company aims to achieve an annual production rate of 1,000 GWh by 2030.\n", 97 | "\n", 98 | " 5. Risk Factors and Challenges:\n", 99 | "\n", 100 | " Supply Chain Constraints:\n", 101 | " While easing compared to previous years, supply chain issues continue to pose challenges, particularly in sourcing semiconductor chips and raw materials for batteries.\n", 102 | "\n", 103 | " Regulatory Environment:\n", 104 | " Evolving regulations around EVs, autonomous driving, and data privacy across different markets could impact Tesla's operations and expansion plans.\n", 105 | "\n", 106 | " Macroeconomic Factors:\n", 107 | " Rising interest rates and inflationary pressures may affect consumer demand for EVs and impact Tesla's profit margins.\n", 108 | "\n", 109 | " Competition:\n", 110 | " Intensifying competition in the EV market, especially in key markets like China and Europe, could pressure Tesla's market share and pricing power.\n", 111 | "\n", 112 | " 6. Financial Ratios and Metrics:\n", 113 | "\n", 114 | " Profitability Ratios:\n", 115 | " - Return on Equity (ROE): 18.2%\n", 116 | " - Return on Assets (ROA): 10.3%\n", 117 | " - EBITDA Margin: 15.7%\n", 118 | "\n", 119 | " Liquidity Ratios:\n", 120 | " - Current Ratio: 1.73\n", 121 | " - Quick Ratio: 1.25\n", 122 | "\n", 123 | " Efficiency Ratios:\n", 124 | " - Asset Turnover Ratio: 0.88\n", 125 | " - Inventory Turnover Ratio: 11.2\n", 126 | "\n", 127 | " Valuation Metrics:\n", 128 | " - Price-to-Earnings (P/E) Ratio: 70.5\n", 129 | " - Price-to-Sales (P/S) Ratio: 7.8\n", 130 | " - Enterprise Value to EBITDA (EV/EBITDA): 41.2\n", 131 | "\n", 132 | " 7. Segment Analysis:\n", 133 | "\n", 134 | " Automotive Segment:\n", 135 | " - Revenue: $19.63 billion (84% of total revenue)\n", 136 | " - Gross Margin: 18.9%\n", 137 | " - Key Products: Model 3, Model Y, Model S, Model X\n", 138 | "\n", 139 | " Energy Generation and Storage:\n", 140 | " - Revenue: $1.56 billion (7% of total revenue)\n", 141 | " - Gross Margin: 14.2%\n", 142 | " - Key Products: Powerwall, Powerpack, Megapack, Solar Roof\n", 143 | "\n", 144 | " Services and Other:\n", 145 | " - Revenue: $2.16 billion (9% of total revenue)\n", 146 | " - Gross Margin: 5.3%\n", 147 | " - Includes vehicle maintenance, repair, and used vehicle sales\n", 148 | "\n", 149 | " 8. Geographic Revenue Distribution:\n", 150 | "\n", 151 | " - United States: $12.34 billion (53% of total revenue)\n", 152 | " - China: $4.67 billion (20% of total revenue)\n", 153 | " - Europe: $3.97 billion (17% of total revenue)\n", 154 | " - Other: $2.37 billion (10% of total revenue)\n", 155 | "\n", 156 | " 9. Research and Development:\n", 157 | "\n", 158 | " Tesla invested $1.16 billion in R&D during Q3 2023, representing 5% of total revenue. Key focus areas include:\n", 159 | " - Next-generation vehicle platform development\n", 160 | " - Advancements in battery technology and production processes\n", 161 | " - Enhancements to Full Self-Driving (FSD) capabilities\n", 162 | " - Energy storage and solar technology improvements\n", 163 | "\n", 164 | " 10. Capital Expenditures and Investments:\n", 165 | "\n", 166 | " Capital expenditures for Q3 2023 totaled $2.46 billion, primarily allocated to:\n", 167 | " - Expansion and upgrades of production facilities\n", 168 | " - Tooling for new products, including the Cybertruck\n", 169 | " - Supercharger network expansion\n", 170 | " - Investments in battery cell production capacity\n", 171 | "\n", 172 | " 11. Debt and Capital Structure:\n", 173 | "\n", 174 | " As of September 30, 2023:\n", 175 | " - Total Debt: $5.62 billion\n", 176 | " - Total Equity: $43.51 billion\n", 177 | " - Debt-to-Equity Ratio: 0.13\n", 178 | " - Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC): 8.7%\n", 179 | "\n", 180 | " 12. Stock Performance and Shareholder Returns:\n", 181 | "\n", 182 | " - 52-Week Price Range: $152.37 - $299.29\n", 183 | " - Market Capitalization: $792.5 billion (as of October 31, 2023)\n", 184 | " - Dividend Policy: Tesla does not currently pay dividends, reinvesting profits into growth initiatives\n", 185 | " - Share Repurchases: No significant share repurchases in Q3 2023\n", 186 | "\n", 187 | " 13. Corporate Governance and Sustainability:\n", 188 | "\n", 189 | " Board Composition:\n", 190 | " Tesla's Board of Directors consists of 8 members, with 6 independent directors. The roles of CEO and Chairman are separate, with Robyn Denholm serving as Chairwoman.\n", 191 | "\n", 192 | " ESG Initiatives:\n", 193 | " - Environmental: Committed to using 100% renewable energy in all operations by 2030\n", 194 | " - Social: Focus on diversity and inclusion, with women representing 29% of the global workforce\n", 195 | " - Governance: Enhanced transparency in supply chain management and ethical sourcing of materials\n", 196 | "\n", 197 | " 14. Analyst Recommendations and Price Targets:\n", 198 | "\n", 199 | " As of October 31, 2023:\n", 200 | " - Buy: 22 analysts\n", 201 | " - Hold: 15 analysts\n", 202 | " - Sell: 5 analysts\n", 203 | " - Average 12-month price target: $245.67\n", 204 | "\n", 205 | " 15. Upcoming Catalysts and Events:\n", 206 | "\n", 207 | " - Cybertruck production ramp-up and initial deliveries (Q4 2023)\n", 208 | " - Investor Day 2024 (Date TBA)\n", 209 | " - Potential unveiling of next-generation vehicle platform (2024)\n", 210 | " - Expansion of FSD beta program to additional markets\n", 211 | "\n", 212 | " Conclusion:\n", 213 | " Tesla's Q3 2023 financial results demonstrate the company's continued leadership in the EV market, with strong revenue growth and operational improvements. While facing increased competition and margin pressures, Tesla's robust balance sheet, technological innovations, and expanding product portfolio position it well for future growth. Investors should monitor key metrics such as production ramp-up, margin trends, and progress on strategic initiatives to assess Tesla's long-term value proposition in the rapidly evolving automotive and energy markets.\n", 214 | " \"\"\"" 215 | ] 216 | }, 217 | { 218 | "cell_type": "code", 219 | "execution_count": 3, 220 | "metadata": { 221 | "id": "wfbMsk2it90s" 222 | }, 223 | "outputs": [], 224 | "source": [ 225 | "# Initialize ContextualRetrieval\n", 226 | "cr = ContextualRetrieval()" 227 | ] 228 | }, 229 | { 230 | "cell_type": "code", 231 | "execution_count": 4, 232 | "metadata": { 233 | "id": "rfsamSeAuE5b" 234 | }, 235 | "outputs": [ 236 | { 237 | "name": "stdout", 238 | "output_type": "stream", 239 | "text": [ 240 | "Time taken to split document into chunks: 0.0004191398620605469 seconds\n", 241 | "Time taken to generate contextualized chunks: 2.4318058490753174 seconds\n" 242 | ] 243 | } 244 | ], 245 | "source": [ 246 | "# Process the document\n", 247 | "original_chunks, contextualized_chunks = cr.process_document(document[:10000])" 248 | ] 249 | }, 250 | { 251 | "cell_type": "code", 252 | "execution_count": 10, 253 | "metadata": {}, 254 | "outputs": [ 255 | { 256 | "name": "stdout", 257 | "output_type": "stream", 258 | "text": [ 259 | "Upserting batch 1 of 1\n", 260 | "{'id': '1',\n", 261 | " 'metadata': {'document_name': '',\n", 262 | " 'text': \"The chunk provides a detailed overview of Tesla's \"\n", 263 | " 'financial performance in Q3 2023, specifically focusing '\n", 264 | " 'on revenue growth and contributions from different '\n", 265 | " 'segments, and is situated within the broader financial '\n", 266 | " 'analysis and market overview section of the document.\\n'\n", 267 | " '\\n'\n", 268 | " '1. Financial Performance Overview:\\n'\n", 269 | " '\\n'\n", 270 | " ' Revenue:\\n'\n", 271 | " ' Tesla reported total revenue of $23.35 billion in '\n", 272 | " 'Q3 2023, marking a 9% increase year-over-year (YoY) '\n", 273 | " 'from $21.45 billion in Q3 2022. The automotive segment '\n", 274 | " 'remained the primary revenue driver, contributing '\n", 275 | " '$19.63 billion, up 5% YoY. Energy generation and '\n", 276 | " 'storage revenue saw significant growth, reaching $1.56 '\n", 277 | " 'billion, a 40% increase YoY.'},\n", 278 | " 'score': 0.70058316,\n", 279 | " 'values': []}\n" 280 | ] 281 | } 282 | ], 283 | "source": [ 284 | "# Create Pinecone indexes\n", 285 | "cr.create_pinecone_index(\"contextual-summary\", contextualized_chunks)\n", 286 | "\n", 287 | "# Retrieve from Pinecone\n", 288 | "results = cr.query_pinecone_index(\"contextual-summary\", \"What was Tesla's total revenue in Q3 2023?\", top_k=3, include_values=False, include_metadata=True)\n", 289 | "print(results[0])" 290 | ] 291 | }, 292 | { 293 | "cell_type": "code", 294 | "execution_count": 11, 295 | "metadata": { 296 | "colab": { 297 | "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/" 298 | }, 299 | "id": "WNtr07mQvK2q", 300 | "outputId": "6ef794ff-de3c-4183-d2b2-e1182cabf085" 301 | }, 302 | "outputs": [ 303 | { 304 | "name": "stdout", 305 | "output_type": "stream", 306 | "text": [ 307 | "Processed 15 chunks\n", 308 | "Cache key for the document: 8bc3e18738fe5e65f23ecc719972feb8\n" 309 | ] 310 | } 311 | ], 312 | "source": [ 313 | "cache_key = cr.generate_cache_key(document)\n", 314 | "print(f\"Processed {len(original_chunks)} chunks\")\n", 315 | "print(f\"Cache key for the document: {cache_key}\")" 316 | ] 317 | }, 318 | { 319 | "cell_type": "code", 320 | "execution_count": 12, 321 | "metadata": { 322 | "id": "UO_8MqR1vPIF" 323 | }, 324 | "outputs": [], 325 | "source": [ 326 | "# Example queries related to financial information\n", 327 | "queries = [\n", 328 | " \"What was Tesla's total revenue in Q3 2023? what was the gross profit and cash position?\",\n", 329 | " \"How does the automotive gross margin in Q3 2023 compare to the previous year?\",\n", 330 | " \"What is Tesla's current debt-to-equity ratio?\",\n", 331 | " \"How much did Tesla invest in R&D during Q3 2023?\",\n", 332 | " \"What is Tesla's market share in the global EV market for Q3 2023?\"\n", 333 | " ]" 334 | ] 335 | }, 336 | { 337 | "cell_type": "code", 338 | "execution_count": 13, 339 | "metadata": { 340 | "colab": { 341 | "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/" 342 | }, 343 | "id": "rkwJ5iTgvYHE", 344 | "outputId": "eaad7a49-ed03-4106-b84a-71ef09004e37" 345 | }, 346 | "outputs": [ 347 | { 348 | "name": "stdout", 349 | "output_type": "stream", 350 | "text": [ 351 | "\n", 352 | "Query: What was Tesla's total revenue in Q3 2023? what was the gross profit and cash position?\n", 353 | "Tesla's total revenue in Q3 2023 was $23.35 billion. The gross profit for the quarter was $4.18 billion, and the cash position at the end of Q3 2023 was $26.08 billion.\n", 354 | "\n", 355 | "==================================================\n", 356 | "\n", 357 | "Query: How does the automotive gross margin in Q3 2023 compare to the previous year?\n", 358 | "The automotive gross margin in Q3 2023 was 17.9%, which represents a decrease from the 25.1% gross margin in Q3 2022.\n", 359 | "\n", 360 | "==================================================\n", 361 | "\n", 362 | "Query: What is Tesla's current debt-to-equity ratio?\n", 363 | "Tesla's current debt-to-equity ratio is 0.13.\n", 364 | "\n", 365 | "==================================================\n", 366 | "\n", 367 | "Query: How much did Tesla invest in R&D during Q3 2023?\n", 368 | "Tesla invested $1.16 billion in R&D during Q3 2023.\n", 369 | "\n", 370 | "==================================================\n", 371 | "\n", 372 | "Query: What is Tesla's market share in the global EV market for Q3 2023?\n", 373 | "Tesla's market share in the global EV market for Q3 2023 is estimated to be 18%.\n", 374 | "\n", 375 | "==================================================\n" 376 | ] 377 | } 378 | ], 379 | "source": [ 380 | "for query in queries:\n", 381 | " print(f\"\\nQuery: {query}\")\n", 382 | "\n", 383 | " vector_results = cr.query_pinecone_index(\"contextual-summary\", query, top_k=3)\n", 384 | " agent_answer = cr.generate_answer(query, [doc['metadata']['text'] for doc in vector_results])\n", 385 | " print(agent_answer)\n", 386 | "\n", 387 | " print(\"\\n\" + \"=\"*50)\n" 388 | ] 389 | } 390 | ], 391 | "metadata": { 392 | "colab": { 393 | "provenance": [] 394 | }, 395 | "kernelspec": { 396 | "display_name": "Python 3", 397 | "name": "python3" 398 | }, 399 | "language_info": { 400 | "codemirror_mode": { 401 | "name": "ipython", 402 | "version": 3 403 | }, 404 | "file_extension": ".py", 405 | "mimetype": "text/x-python", 406 | "name": "python", 407 | "nbconvert_exporter": "python", 408 | "pygments_lexer": "ipython3", 409 | "version": "3.10.14" 410 | } 411 | }, 412 | "nbformat": 4, 413 | "nbformat_minor": 0 414 | } 415 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /RAG_Engine/__pycache__/contextual_retriever.cpython-310.pyc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/RAG_Engine/__pycache__/contextual_retriever.cpython-310.pyc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /RAG_Engine/__pycache__/contextual_retriever.cpython-312.pyc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/RAG_Engine/__pycache__/contextual_retriever.cpython-312.pyc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /RAG_Engine/contextual_retriever.py: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 2 | # Modified from tutorial on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6efwN_US-zk 3 | import uuid 4 | import hashlib 5 | import os 6 | import getpass 7 | from typing import List, Tuple 8 | from dotenv import load_dotenv 9 | from langchain.text_splitter import RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter 10 | from langchain.schema import Document 11 | from langchain.embeddings import OpenAIEmbeddings 12 | from langchain.vectorstores import FAISS 13 | from langchain_openai import ChatOpenAI 14 | from langchain.prompts import ChatPromptTemplate 15 | from rank_bm25 import BM25Okapi 16 | from pinecone import Pinecone, ServerlessSpec 17 | import concurrent 18 | from openai import OpenAI 19 | import time 20 | 21 | load_dotenv() 22 | 23 | ## Initialize OpenAI and Pinecone clients 24 | openai_client = OpenAI( 25 | api_key=os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY"), 26 | ) 27 | 28 | pc = Pinecone(api_key=os.getenv("PINECONE_API_KEY")) 29 | 30 | def get_openai_embeddings(input_data): 31 | response = openai_client.embeddings.create(input=input_data, 32 | model="text-embedding-3-small") 33 | return response.data[0].embedding 34 | 35 | class ContextualRetrieval: 36 | """ 37 | A class that implements the Contextual Retrieval system. 38 | """ 39 | 40 | def __init__(self): 41 | """ 42 | Initialize the ContextualRetrieval system. 43 | """ 44 | self.text_splitter = RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter( 45 | chunk_size=800, 46 | chunk_overlap=100, 47 | ) 48 | 49 | self.embeddings = get_openai_embeddings 50 | self.llm = ChatOpenAI( 51 | model="gpt-4o-mini", 52 | temperature=0, 53 | max_tokens=None, 54 | timeout=None, 55 | max_retries=2, 56 | ) 57 | 58 | def process_document(self, document: str, document_name="") -> Tuple[List[Document], List[Document]]: 59 | """ 60 | Process a document by splitting it into chunks and generating context for each chunk. 61 | """ 62 | 63 | start_time = time.time() 64 | chunks = self.text_splitter.create_documents([document]) 65 | for chunk in chunks: 66 | chunk.metadata["document_name"] = document_name 67 | end_time = time.time() 68 | # print(f"Time taken to split document into chunks: {end_time - start_time} seconds") 69 | 70 | start_time = time.time() 71 | contextualized_chunks = self._generate_contextualized_chunks(document, chunks) 72 | end_time = time.time() 73 | # print(f"Time taken to generate contextualized chunks: {end_time - start_time} seconds") 74 | return chunks, contextualized_chunks 75 | 76 | def _generate_contextualized_chunks(self, document: str, chunks: List[Document], parallel_processes: int = 20) -> List[Document]: 77 | """ 78 | Generate contextualized versions of the given chunks. 79 | """ 80 | contextualized_chunks = [] 81 | with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=parallel_processes) as executor: 82 | futures = [] 83 | for chunk in chunks: 84 | futures.append(executor.submit(self._generate_context, document, chunk)) 85 | 86 | for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures): 87 | document, chunk, context = future.result() 88 | contextualized_content = f"{context}\n\n{chunk.page_content}" 89 | contextualized_chunks.append(Document(page_content=contextualized_content, metadata=chunk.metadata)) 90 | return contextualized_chunks 91 | 92 | def _generate_context(self, document: str, chunk: str) -> str: 93 | """ 94 | Generate context for a specific chunk using the language model. 95 | """ 96 | prompt = ChatPromptTemplate.from_template(""" 97 | 98 | {document} 99 | 100 | Here is the chunk we want to situate within the whole document 101 | 102 | {chunk} 103 | 104 | Please give a short succinct context to situate this chunk within the overall document for the purposes of improving search retrieval of the chunk. Answer only with the succinct context and nothing else. 105 | """) 106 | messages = prompt.format_messages(document=document, chunk=chunk.page_content) 107 | response = self.llm.invoke(messages) 108 | return document, chunk, response.content 109 | 110 | def create_bm25_index(self, chunks: List[Document]) -> BM25Okapi: 111 | """ 112 | Create a BM25 index for the given chunks. 113 | """ 114 | tokenized_chunks = [chunk.page_content.split() for chunk in chunks] 115 | return BM25Okapi(tokenized_chunks) 116 | 117 | def parallel_upsert(self, index, vectors): 118 | """ 119 | Upsert vectors into a Pinecone index in parallel. 120 | """ 121 | index.upsert(vectors=vectors) 122 | 123 | def get_parallel_embeddings(self, i, chunk): 124 | # add a uuid as well 125 | uuid_id = str(uuid.uuid4()) 126 | id = f"{chunk.metadata['document_name']}_{i}_{uuid_id}" 127 | output = self.embeddings(chunk.page_content) 128 | metadata = { 129 | "text": chunk.page_content, 130 | "document_name": chunk.metadata.get("document_name") 131 | } 132 | return {"id": id, "values": output, "metadata": metadata} 133 | 134 | def create_pinecone_index(self, index_name: str, chunks: List[Document]): 135 | """ 136 | Create a Pinecone index for the given chunks. 137 | """ 138 | # Check if the index already exists 139 | if index_name not in pc.list_indexes().names(): 140 | # Create a new index 141 | pc.create_index( 142 | index_name, 143 | dimension=len(self.embeddings(chunks[0].page_content)), 144 | spec=ServerlessSpec( 145 | cloud="aws", 146 | region=os.getenv("PINECONE_REGION"), 147 | ), 148 | ) 149 | 150 | else: 151 | print(f"Index {index_name} already exists") 152 | # Connect to the index 153 | index = pc.Index(index_name) 154 | 155 | finalized_vectors = [] 156 | # Prepare data for upsert 157 | with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=20) as executor: 158 | futures = [executor.submit(self.get_parallel_embeddings, i, chunk) for i, chunk in enumerate(chunks)] 159 | 160 | for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures): 161 | finalized_vectors.append(future.result()) 162 | 163 | finalized_vectors = sorted(finalized_vectors, key=lambda x: x['id']) 164 | # for i in range(len(vectors)): 165 | # print(vectors[i]) 166 | 167 | # Upsert data into the index in batches and in parallel 168 | batch_size = 100 169 | with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor() as executor: 170 | futures = [] 171 | for i in range(0, len(finalized_vectors), batch_size): 172 | print(f"Upserting batch {i//batch_size + 1} of {len(finalized_vectors)//batch_size + 1}") 173 | batch = finalized_vectors[i:i + batch_size] 174 | futures.append(executor.submit(self.parallel_upsert, index, batch)) 175 | for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures): 176 | pass # basically just wait for all the threads to finish 177 | 178 | def query_pinecone_index(self, index_name: str, query: str, top_k: int = 3, include_values: bool = True, include_metadata: bool = True): 179 | """ 180 | Query a Pinecone index. 181 | """ 182 | index = pc.Index(index_name) 183 | query_vector = self.embeddings(query) 184 | results = index.query(vector=query_vector, top_k=top_k, include_values=include_values, include_metadata=include_metadata) 185 | return results['matches'] 186 | 187 | @staticmethod 188 | def generate_cache_key(document: str) -> str: 189 | """ 190 | Generate a cache key for a document. 191 | """ 192 | return hashlib.md5(document.encode()).hexdigest() 193 | 194 | def generate_answer(self, query: str, relevant_chunks: List[str]) -> str: 195 | prompt = ChatPromptTemplate.from_template(""" 196 | Based on the following information, please provide a concise and accurate answer to the question. 197 | If the information is not sufficient to answer the question, say so. 198 | 199 | Question: {query} 200 | 201 | Relevant information: 202 | {chunks} 203 | 204 | Answer: 205 | """) 206 | messages = prompt.format_messages(query=query, chunks="\n\n".join(relevant_chunks)) 207 | response = self.llm.invoke(messages) 208 | return response.content 209 | 210 | def index_documents(): 211 | cr = ContextualRetrieval() 212 | for file in os.listdir("precedents/"): 213 | filename = "precedents/" + file 214 | print(f"Indexing {filename}") 215 | with open(filename, "r") as f: 216 | original_chunks, contextualized_chunks = cr.process_document(f.read(), filename) 217 | cr.create_pinecone_index("contextual-summary", contextualized_chunks) 218 | 219 | def closest_matching_documents(query: str, top_k: int = 3): 220 | cr = ContextualRetrieval() 221 | results = cr.query_pinecone_index("contextual-summary", query, top_k=top_k*30, include_values=False, include_metadata=True) 222 | document_names = set() 223 | for result in results: 224 | document_names.add(result.metadata["document_name"]) 225 | if len(document_names) == top_k: 226 | break 227 | return list(document_names) 228 | 229 | 230 | if __name__ == "__main__": 231 | index_documents() 232 | print(closest_matching_documents("What is the capital of France?")) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Specter 2 | Specter is an AI powered web platform designed to help lawyers and legal professionals prepare for case negotiations by simulating potential outcomes. Users upload a case that they want to practice with in PDF format, which we can then cross reference against prior cases. All relevant information for the case is used to simulate multiple trajectories between an agent representing party A and an agent representing party B. Each of these trajectories forms a catalog of strategies that worked and didn't when negotiating and are used to initialize a persona for opposing counsel, one that is now much stronger and competent. This persona is then integrated with the GPT4 voice mode, which a lawyer at your firm can practice negotiating against, until a deal is verbally confirmed. 3 | 4 | ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2784feb1-fb97-465d-b319-c912f2d20474) 5 | 6 | ## High Level Overview 7 | 8 | At a high level, it involves three steps: 9 | 1) Integrating with information from past cases and the current case to retrieve relevant information about the case using past precedent. 10 | 2) Simulating 100 potential trajectories for negotiations between agent 1 (representing company 1) and agent 2 (representing company 2). These trajectories then are used to create an intelligent AI persona that can think of more complex use cases. 11 | 3) The persona is fed into the Chat GPT voice endpoint to initialize it. Then the voice agent takes the stance of opposing counsel and negotiates against you. 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ## RAG Engine 16 | - Our RAG Engine uses a **contextual summary** approach pioneered by Anthropic, which allows for more efficient and accurate extraction of legal precedents, outcomes, strategies, and tactics relevant to the current negotiation. 17 | - All information is stored in a pinecone vector database. The allows easy retrieval of facts about the case. This approach ensures that the AI persona is well-informed and capable of simulating realistic negotiation scenarios. 18 | 19 | ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/24abc685-d8b9-4bf7-b5a9-0c9336a0720a) 20 | 21 | 22 | ## Simulation Infrastructure 23 | - **Agent 1 vs. Agent 2 Dynamics:** Two agents, one representing each party (company 1 and company 2), simulate a wide range of potential negotiation pathways (trajectories). Each agent leverages the retrieved case information and applies different negotiation strategies to explore possible outcomes. 24 | - **Parallel Simulations:** The system generates and runs 100 potential negotiation trajectories in parallel, covering various tactics, strategies, and outcomes. This large-scale simulation allows the tool to map out a diverse set of negotiation outcomes, enabling lawyers to visualize different ways the negotiation could unfold. 25 | - **Trajectory Evaluation:** Each trajectory is analyzed for potential success, risks, and opportunities, helping the lawyer prepare for a wide array of negotiation moves, counter-moves, and final outcomes. 26 | 27 | ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8f8cfef4-300f-49de-93e9-53d9337d07f3) 28 | 29 | ## Intelligent AI Persona Creation 30 | - **Persona Synthesis:** After running the 100 trajectories, the system synthesizes the knowledge gained from the simulations into an intelligent AI persona. This persona embodies the thought process, strategies, and negotiation stances of an experienced opponent, enabling more nuanced and sophisticated interactions during practice negotiations. 31 | - **Adaptive Responses:** The AI persona is designed to adapt to different negotiation styles and react dynamically to the user’s inputs, helping the lawyer refine their tactics in real-time. 32 | 33 | ## Voice Bot Integration (Chat GPT Voice Endpoint) 34 | - **Natural Language Interaction:** Once the intelligent persona is generated, it is integrated into a voice bot powered by the Chat GPT voice endpoint. This allows the user to interact with the agent in a natural, conversational manner, simulating a real negotiation scenario with opposing counsel. 35 | - **Realistic Back-and-Forth Negotiations:** The voice bot, representing opposing counsel, negotiates against the user. It simulates pressure tactics, alternative offers, counterarguments, and other elements that a lawyer would face in real-world negotiations, offering a highly immersive preparation experience. 36 | 37 | ## Get Started: 38 | 1) Clone: Clone the repo 39 | 2) Requirements: `pip install -r requirements.txt` 40 | 3) API Keys: Add OpenAI and Pinecone Keys in .env 41 | 4) Host backend: `python server.py` from root folder 42 | 5) Host frontend: Navigate to UI/specter, and run `npm run dev` 43 | 44 | ## Credits 45 | - Frontend based on Harvey.ai 46 | - Voice API based on OpenAI's ChatGPT Voice Endpoint 47 | - Voice API hosted on outspeed. 48 | - A LOT of help from Cursor :) 49 | 50 | 51 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/.eslintrc.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | { 2 | "extends": ["next/core-web-vitals", "next/typescript"] 3 | } 4 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/.gitignore: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # See https://help.github.com/articles/ignoring-files/ for more about ignoring files. 2 | 3 | # dependencies 4 | /node_modules 5 | /.pnp 6 | .pnp.js 7 | .yarn/install-state.gz 8 | 9 | # testing 10 | /coverage 11 | 12 | # next.js 13 | /.next/ 14 | /out/ 15 | 16 | # production 17 | /build 18 | 19 | # misc 20 | .DS_Store 21 | *.pem 22 | 23 | # debug 24 | npm-debug.log* 25 | yarn-debug.log* 26 | yarn-error.log* 27 | 28 | # local env files 29 | .env*.local 30 | 31 | # vercel 32 | .vercel 33 | 34 | # typescript 35 | *.tsbuildinfo 36 | next-env.d.ts 37 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | This is a [Next.js](https://nextjs.org) project bootstrapped with [`create-next-app`](https://nextjs.org/docs/app/api-reference/cli/create-next-app). 2 | 3 | ## Getting Started 4 | 5 | First, run the development server: 6 | 7 | ```bash 8 | npm run dev 9 | # or 10 | yarn dev 11 | # or 12 | pnpm dev 13 | # or 14 | bun dev 15 | ``` 16 | 17 | Open [http://localhost:3000](http://localhost:3000) with your browser to see the result. 18 | 19 | You can start editing the page by modifying `app/page.tsx`. The page auto-updates as you edit the file. 20 | 21 | This project uses [`next/font`](https://nextjs.org/docs/app/building-your-application/optimizing/fonts) to automatically optimize and load [Geist](https://vercel.com/font), a new font family for Vercel. 22 | 23 | ## Learn More 24 | 25 | To learn more about Next.js, take a look at the following resources: 26 | 27 | - [Next.js Documentation](https://nextjs.org/docs) - learn about Next.js features and API. 28 | - [Learn Next.js](https://nextjs.org/learn) - an interactive Next.js tutorial. 29 | 30 | You can check out [the Next.js GitHub repository](https://github.com/vercel/next.js) - your feedback and contributions are welcome! 31 | 32 | ## Deploy on Vercel 33 | 34 | The easiest way to deploy your Next.js app is to use the [Vercel Platform](https://vercel.com/new?utm_medium=default-template&filter=next.js&utm_source=create-next-app&utm_campaign=create-next-app-readme) from the creators of Next.js. 35 | 36 | Check out our [Next.js deployment documentation](https://nextjs.org/docs/app/building-your-application/deploying) for more details. 37 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/favicon.ico: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/UI/specter/app/favicon.ico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/fonts/GeistMonoVF.woff: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/UI/specter/app/fonts/GeistMonoVF.woff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/fonts/GeistVF.woff: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/UI/specter/app/fonts/GeistVF.woff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/globals.css: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | @tailwind base; 2 | @tailwind components; 3 | @tailwind utilities; 4 | 5 | body { 6 | font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; 7 | } 8 | 9 | @layer utilities { 10 | .text-balance { 11 | text-wrap: balance; 12 | } 13 | } 14 | 15 | @layer base { 16 | :root { 17 | --background: 0 0% 100%; 18 | --foreground: 0 0% 3.9%; 19 | --card: 0 0% 100%; 20 | --card-foreground: 0 0% 3.9%; 21 | --popover: 0 0% 100%; 22 | --popover-foreground: 0 0% 3.9%; 23 | --primary: 0 0% 9%; 24 | --primary-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 25 | --secondary: 0 0% 96.1%; 26 | --secondary-foreground: 0 0% 9%; 27 | --muted: 0 0% 96.1%; 28 | --muted-foreground: 0 0% 45.1%; 29 | --accent: 0 0% 96.1%; 30 | --accent-foreground: 0 0% 9%; 31 | --destructive: 0 84.2% 60.2%; 32 | --destructive-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 33 | --border: 0 0% 89.8%; 34 | --input: 0 0% 89.8%; 35 | --ring: 0 0% 3.9%; 36 | --chart-1: 12 76% 61%; 37 | --chart-2: 173 58% 39%; 38 | --chart-3: 197 37% 24%; 39 | --chart-4: 43 74% 66%; 40 | --chart-5: 27 87% 67%; 41 | --radius: 0.5rem; 42 | } 43 | .dark { 44 | --background: 0 0% 3.9%; 45 | --foreground: 0 0% 98%; 46 | --card: 0 0% 3.9%; 47 | --card-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 48 | --popover: 0 0% 3.9%; 49 | --popover-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 50 | --primary: 0 0% 98%; 51 | --primary-foreground: 0 0% 9%; 52 | --secondary: 0 0% 14.9%; 53 | --secondary-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 54 | --muted: 0 0% 14.9%; 55 | --muted-foreground: 0 0% 63.9%; 56 | --accent: 0 0% 14.9%; 57 | --accent-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 58 | --destructive: 0 62.8% 30.6%; 59 | --destructive-foreground: 0 0% 98%; 60 | --border: 0 0% 14.9%; 61 | --input: 0 0% 14.9%; 62 | --ring: 0 0% 83.1%; 63 | --chart-1: 220 70% 50%; 64 | --chart-2: 160 60% 45%; 65 | --chart-3: 30 80% 55%; 66 | --chart-4: 280 65% 60%; 67 | --chart-5: 340 75% 55%; 68 | } 69 | } 70 | 71 | @layer base { 72 | * { 73 | @apply border-border; 74 | } 75 | body { 76 | @apply bg-background text-foreground; 77 | } 78 | } 79 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/layout.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // app/layout.tsx 2 | import React from 'react'; 3 | import Sidebar from '../components/sidebar'; 4 | import './globals.css'; // Import global styles if you have any 5 | 6 | export const metadata = { 7 | title: 'Specter', 8 | }; 9 | 10 | export default function RootLayout({ 11 | children, 12 | }: { 13 | children: React.ReactNode; 14 | }) { 15 | return ( 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 |
{children}
21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | ); 25 | } 26 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // app/page.tsx 2 | 'use client'; 3 | 4 | import React from 'react'; 5 | import DefaultPage from '../components/default-page'; 6 | 7 | export default function Home() { 8 | return ; 9 | } 10 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/runs/page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // app/runs/page.tsx 2 | 'use client'; 3 | 4 | import React from 'react'; 5 | import RunsPage from '../../components/runs-page'; 6 | 7 | export default function Runs() { 8 | return ; 9 | } 10 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/app/view-runs/page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // app/view-runs/page.tsx 2 | 'use client'; 3 | 4 | import React from 'react'; 5 | import ViewRunsPage from '../../components/view-runs-page'; 6 | 7 | export default function ViewRuns() { 8 | return ; 9 | } 10 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | { 2 | "$schema": "https://ui.shadcn.com/schema.json", 3 | "style": "new-york", 4 | "rsc": true, 5 | "tsx": true, 6 | "tailwind": { 7 | "config": "tailwind.config.ts", 8 | "css": "app/globals.css", 9 | "baseColor": "neutral", 10 | "cssVariables": true, 11 | "prefix": "" 12 | }, 13 | "aliases": { 14 | "components": "@/components", 15 | "utils": "@/lib/utils", 16 | "ui": "@/components/ui", 17 | "lib": "@/lib", 18 | "hooks": "@/hooks" 19 | } 20 | } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/Layout.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import React from 'react'; 2 | import Link from 'next/link'; 3 | import { UploadCloud, FileText, MessageSquare, GitBranch } from 'lucide-react'; 4 | 5 | const Layout: React.FC<{ children: React.ReactNode }> = ({ children }) => { 6 | return ( 7 |
8 | {/* Sidebar */} 9 |
10 |

Specter

11 | 47 |
48 | 49 | {/* Main content */} 50 |
{children}
51 |
52 | ); 53 | }; 54 | 55 | export default Layout; 56 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/default-page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 'use client' 2 | 3 | import React, { useState, useRef } from 'react'; 4 | import { FileText } from 'lucide-react'; 5 | import { BACKEND_URL } from '../lib/config'; 6 | 7 | function DefaultPage() { 8 | const [relevantDocs, setRelevantDocs] = useState([]); 9 | const [filename, setFilename] = useState(null); 10 | const fileInputRef = useRef(null); 11 | 12 | const handleFileUpload = async (event: React.ChangeEvent) => { 13 | const file = event.target.files?.[0]; 14 | if (!file) return; 15 | 16 | 17 | const formData = new FormData(); 18 | formData.append('file', file); 19 | 20 | try { 21 | const response = await fetch(`${BACKEND_URL}/upload`, { 22 | method: 'POST', 23 | body: formData, 24 | }); 25 | 26 | if (response.ok) { 27 | const data = await response.json(); 28 | alert(`File uploaded successfully: ${data.filename}`); 29 | 30 | // Fetch relevant documents 31 | const relevantResponse = await fetch(`${BACKEND_URL}/relevant-docs/${data.filename}`); 32 | if (relevantResponse.ok) { 33 | const relevantData = await relevantResponse.json(); 34 | setRelevantDocs(relevantData.relevant_docs); 35 | setFilename(data.filename); 36 | } 37 | } else { 38 | alert('File upload failed'); 39 | } 40 | } catch (error) { 41 | console.error('Error uploading file:', error); 42 | alert('Error uploading file'); 43 | } 44 | }; 45 | 46 | const handleRunTrajectories = async () => { 47 | if (!filename) { 48 | alert('Please upload a file first'); 49 | return; 50 | } 51 | 52 | try { 53 | const response = await fetch(`${BACKEND_URL}/run-trajectories`, { 54 | method: 'POST', 55 | headers: { 56 | 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 57 | }, 58 | body: JSON.stringify({ n: 10 }), // Assuming n is 10 for this example 59 | }); 60 | 61 | if (response.ok) { 62 | await response.json(); // Consume the response without assigning it 63 | alert('Trajectories simulation completed successfully'); 64 | // Handle the response data as needed in the future 65 | } else { 66 | alert('Failed to run trajectories simulation'); 67 | } 68 | } catch (error) { 69 | console.error('Error running trajectories:', error); 70 | alert('Error running trajectories simulation'); 71 | } 72 | }; 73 | 74 | return ( 75 |
76 |
77 |
78 | 79 | {/* Removed the Draft button */} 80 |
81 |
82 | 83 |
84 |

85 | Welcome to Specter, your AI-powered legal assistant. Negotiate your upcoming deals with ease. Upload your case documents and specify any precedents to follow. 86 | Unsure of what's relevant? Let us identify key documents for you. We're ready to assist you whenever you're ready to proceed. 87 |

88 |
89 | 90 | 96 | 102 | 103 |
104 |

Sources

105 |
106 | {relevantDocs.map((doc, index) => ( 107 |
108 | 109 | {doc} 110 |
111 | ))} 112 |
113 |
114 | 115 | {relevantDocs.length > 0 && ( 116 | 122 | )} 123 |
124 | ); 125 | } 126 | 127 | export default DefaultPage; 128 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/harvey-ui.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // 'use client' 2 | 3 | // import React, { useState, useEffect } from "react" 4 | // import { FileText, GitBranch, MessageSquare, UploadCloud } from "lucide-react" 5 | 6 | // // Define the type for a message 7 | // interface Message { 8 | // speaker: string; 9 | // message: string; 10 | // } 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/run-page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | export default function Component() { 2 | const runs = ["Run 1", "Run 2", "Run 3", "Run 4"] 3 | 4 | return ( 5 |
6 |

Specter

7 |
8 |
    9 | {runs.map((run, index) => ( 10 |
  • 11 | {run} 12 |
    • 13 | ))} 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 | ) 18 | } 19 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/runs-page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import React, { useState, useEffect } from "react" 2 | import { BACKEND_URL } from '../lib/config'; 3 | 4 | function RunsPage() { 5 | const [loadingStates, setLoadingStates] = useState(Array(10).fill(true)); 6 | 7 | useEffect(() => { 8 | const checkTaskStatus = async (index: number) => { 9 | try { 10 | const response = await fetch(`${BACKEND_URL}/status?task_id=${index + 1}`); 11 | const data = await response.json(); 12 | console.log(data) 13 | if (data === true) { 14 | setLoadingStates((prevStates) => { 15 | const newStates = [...prevStates]; 16 | newStates[index] = false; 17 | return newStates; 18 | }); 19 | } 20 | } catch (error) { 21 | console.error("Error fetching task status:", error); 22 | } 23 | }; 24 | 25 | loadingStates.forEach((_, index) => { 26 | checkTaskStatus(index); 27 | }); 28 | 29 | const intervalId = setInterval(() => { 30 | loadingStates.forEach((_, index) => { 31 | checkTaskStatus(index); 32 | }); 33 | }, 5000); // Check every 5 seconds 34 | 35 | return () => clearInterval(intervalId); // Cleanup interval on unmount 36 | }, [loadingStates]); 37 | 38 | const runs = Array.from({ length: 10 }, (_, index) => ({ 39 | simulation: `Simulation ${index + 1}`, 40 | details: "(For case GTI vs. EPS - Triggered by Aksh)" 41 | })); 42 | 43 | const allTasksComplete = loadingStates.every(state => !state); 44 | 45 | return ( 46 |
47 |
48 |

View all your runs here

49 |
50 |
    51 | {runs.map((run, index) => ( 52 |
  • 53 |
    54 | {run.simulation} 55 | {run.details} 56 |
    57 | {loadingStates[index] && ( 58 |
    59 | )} 60 |
    • 61 | ))} 62 |
63 |
64 |
65 | {allTasksComplete && ( 66 | 72 | )} 73 |
74 | ); 75 | } 76 | 77 | export default RunsPage; 78 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/sidebar.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // app/components/Sidebar.tsx 2 | 'use client'; 3 | 4 | import React from 'react'; 5 | import Link from 'next/link'; 6 | import { usePathname } from 'next/navigation'; 7 | import { UploadCloud, FileText, MessageSquare, GitBranch } from 'lucide-react'; 8 | 9 | const Sidebar: React.FC = () => { 10 | const pathname = usePathname(); 11 | 12 | const isLinkActive = (href: string) => { 13 | return pathname === href; 14 | }; 15 | 16 | const getLinkClassName = (href: string) => { 17 | const baseClasses = "flex items-center space-x-3 px-3 py-2 rounded-md"; 18 | const activeClasses = "bg-gray-100 text-gray-900"; 19 | const inactiveClasses = "text-gray-600 hover:bg-gray-100"; 20 | 21 | return `${baseClasses} ${isLinkActive(href) ? activeClasses : inactiveClasses}`; 22 | }; 23 | 24 | return ( 25 |
26 |

Specter

27 | 48 |
49 | ); 50 | }; 51 | 52 | export default Sidebar; 53 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/specter-ui.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // 'use client' 2 | 3 | // import React from 'react'; 4 | // import Link from 'next/link'; 5 | // import { UploadCloud, FileText, MessageSquare, GitBranch } from 'lucide-react'; 6 | // import DefaultPage from './default-page'; 7 | // import RunsPage from './runs-page'; 8 | // import ViewRunsPage from './view-runs-page'; 9 | 10 | // export function SpecterUi() { 11 | // const handlePracticeClick = () => { 12 | // window.location.href = 'https://playground.outspeed.com/'; 13 | // }; 14 | 15 | // return ( 16 | // 17 | //
18 | // {/* Sidebar */} 19 | //
20 | //

Specter

21 | // 48 | //
49 | 50 | // {/* Main content */} 51 | //
52 | // 53 | // } /> 54 | // } /> 55 | // } /> 56 | // 57 | //
58 | //
59 | // 60 | // ); 61 | // } 62 | 63 | // export default SpecterUi; 64 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/components/view-runs-page.tsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import React, { useState, useEffect } from "react" 2 | import { BACKEND_URL } from '../lib/config'; 3 | interface Message { 4 | speaker: string; 5 | message: string; 6 | } 7 | 8 | function ViewRunsPage() { 9 | const [conversations, setConversations] = useState([]); 10 | const [selectedRun, setSelectedRun] = useState(null); 11 | 12 | useEffect(() => { 13 | const fetchConversations = async () => { 14 | try { 15 | const response = await fetch(`${BACKEND_URL}/get-trajectory?task_id=${selectedRun}`); 16 | const data = await response.json(); 17 | 18 | console.log(data) 19 | 20 | // Access the 'conversation' array from the response 21 | if (data && Array.isArray(data.conversation)) { 22 | setConversations(data.conversation); 23 | } else { 24 | console.error("Unexpected data format:", data); 25 | setConversations([]); 26 | } 27 | } catch (error) { 28 | console.error("Error fetching conversations:", error); 29 | setConversations([]); 30 | } 31 | }; 32 | 33 | if (selectedRun !== null) { 34 | fetchConversations(); 35 | } 36 | }, [selectedRun]); 37 | 38 | const handleRunChange = (event: React.ChangeEvent) => { 39 | setSelectedRun(event.target.value); 40 | }; 41 | 42 | return ( 43 |
44 |

View Runs

45 | 53 |
54 | {selectedRun !== null && conversations.map((message, index) => ( 55 |
56 | {message.speaker}: {message.message} 57 |
58 | ))} 59 |
60 |
61 | ); 62 | } 63 | 64 | export default ViewRunsPage; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/lib/config.ts: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | // export const BACKEND_URL = 'https://specter-y7gb.onrender.com'; 2 | export const BACKEND_URL = 'http://localhost:8080'; 3 | export const FRONTEND_URL = 'https://specterlabs.xyz'; 4 | 5 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/lib/utils.ts: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import { clsx, type ClassValue } from "clsx" 2 | import { twMerge } from "tailwind-merge" 3 | 4 | export function cn(...inputs: ClassValue[]) { 5 | return twMerge(clsx(inputs)) 6 | } 7 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/next.config.mjs: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | /** @type {import('next').NextConfig} */ 2 | const nextConfig = {}; 3 | 4 | export default nextConfig; 5 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/package.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | { 2 | "name": "specter", 3 | "version": "0.1.0", 4 | "private": true, 5 | "scripts": { 6 | "dev": "next dev", 7 | "build": "next build", 8 | "start": "next start", 9 | "lint": "next lint" 10 | }, 11 | "dependencies": { 12 | "@radix-ui/react-icons": "^1.3.0", 13 | "class-variance-authority": "^0.7.0", 14 | "clsx": "^2.1.1", 15 | "lucide-react": "^0.452.0", 16 | "next": "14.2.15", 17 | "react": "^18", 18 | "react-dom": "^18", 19 | "react-router-dom": "^6.27.0", 20 | "tailwind-merge": "^2.5.3", 21 | "tailwindcss-animate": "^1.0.7" 22 | }, 23 | "devDependencies": { 24 | "@types/node": "^20", 25 | "@types/react": "^18", 26 | "@types/react-dom": "^18", 27 | "eslint": "^8", 28 | "eslint-config-next": "14.2.15", 29 | "postcss": "^8", 30 | "tailwindcss": "^3.4.1", 31 | "typescript": "^5" 32 | } 33 | } 34 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/postcss.config.mjs: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | /** @type {import('postcss-load-config').Config} */ 2 | const config = { 3 | plugins: { 4 | tailwindcss: {}, 5 | }, 6 | }; 7 | 8 | export default config; 9 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/tailwind.config.ts: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import type { Config } from "tailwindcss"; 2 | 3 | const config: Config = { 4 | darkMode: ["class"], 5 | content: [ 6 | "./pages/**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx,mdx}", 7 | "./components/**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx,mdx}", 8 | "./app/**/*.{js,ts,jsx,tsx,mdx}", 9 | ], 10 | theme: { 11 | extend: { 12 | colors: { 13 | background: 'hsl(var(--background))', 14 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--foreground))', 15 | card: { 16 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--card))', 17 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--card-foreground))' 18 | }, 19 | popover: { 20 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--popover))', 21 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--popover-foreground))' 22 | }, 23 | primary: { 24 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--primary))', 25 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--primary-foreground))' 26 | }, 27 | secondary: { 28 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--secondary))', 29 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--secondary-foreground))' 30 | }, 31 | muted: { 32 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--muted))', 33 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--muted-foreground))' 34 | }, 35 | accent: { 36 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--accent))', 37 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--accent-foreground))' 38 | }, 39 | destructive: { 40 | DEFAULT: 'hsl(var(--destructive))', 41 | foreground: 'hsl(var(--destructive-foreground))' 42 | }, 43 | border: 'hsl(var(--border))', 44 | input: 'hsl(var(--input))', 45 | ring: 'hsl(var(--ring))', 46 | chart: { 47 | '1': 'hsl(var(--chart-1))', 48 | '2': 'hsl(var(--chart-2))', 49 | '3': 'hsl(var(--chart-3))', 50 | '4': 'hsl(var(--chart-4))', 51 | '5': 'hsl(var(--chart-5))' 52 | } 53 | }, 54 | borderRadius: { 55 | lg: 'var(--radius)', 56 | md: 'calc(var(--radius) - 2px)', 57 | sm: 'calc(var(--radius) - 4px)' 58 | } 59 | } 60 | }, 61 | plugins: [require("tailwindcss-animate")], 62 | }; 63 | export default config; 64 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /UI/specter/tsconfig.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | { 2 | "compilerOptions": { 3 | "lib": ["dom", "dom.iterable", "esnext"], 4 | "allowJs": true, 5 | "skipLibCheck": true, 6 | "strict": true, 7 | "noEmit": true, 8 | "esModuleInterop": true, 9 | "module": "esnext", 10 | "moduleResolution": "bundler", 11 | "resolveJsonModule": true, 12 | "isolatedModules": true, 13 | "jsx": "preserve", 14 | "incremental": true, 15 | "plugins": [ 16 | { 17 | "name": "next" 18 | } 19 | ], 20 | "paths": { 21 | "@/*": ["./*"] 22 | } 23 | }, 24 | "include": ["next-env.d.ts", "**/*.ts", "**/*.tsx", ".next/types/**/*.ts"], 25 | "exclude": ["node_modules"] 26 | } 27 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /cases/negotiation_case.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **GreenTech Industries (GTI):** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2005 6 | - **Headquarters:** San Francisco, California 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency solar panels for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on solar technology 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **EcoPower Solutions (EPS):** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2010 23 | - **Headquarters:** Austin, Texas 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge battery technology with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced battery technology justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented battery technology will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /precedents/generated_negotiation_case_1.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 1:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2001 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 1 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 1 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 1:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 1 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 1:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2011 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 1 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 1:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 1 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 1 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 1 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 1:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /precedents/generated_negotiation_case_2.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 2:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2002 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 2 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 2 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 2:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 2 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 2:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2012 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 2 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 2:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 2 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 2 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 2 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 2:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /precedents/generated_negotiation_case_3.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 3:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2003 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 3 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 3 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 3:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 3 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 3:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2013 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 3 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 3:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 3 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 3 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 3 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 3:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /precedents/generated_negotiation_case_4.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 4:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2004 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 4 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 4 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 4:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 4 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 4:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2014 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 4 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 4:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 4 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 4 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 4 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 4:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /precedents/generated_negotiation_case_5.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 5:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2005 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 5 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 5 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 5:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 5 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 5:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2015 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 5 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 5:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 5 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 5 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 5 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 5:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /requirements.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | aiohappyeyeballs==2.4.3 2 | aiohttp==3.10.10 3 | aioice==0.9.0 4 | aiortc==1.9.0 5 | aiosignal==1.3.1 6 | annotated-types==0.7.0 7 | anyio==4.6.2.post1 8 | attrs==24.2.0 9 | av==12.3.0 10 | azure-cognitiveservices-speech==1.41.1 11 | beautifulsoup4==4.12.3 12 | cachetools==5.5.0 13 | certifi==2024.8.30 14 | cffi==1.17.1 15 | charset-normalizer==3.4.0 16 | click==8.1.7 17 | coloredlogs==15.0.1 18 | cryptography==43.0.1 19 | dacite==1.8.1 20 | dataclasses-json==0.6.7 21 | Deprecated==1.2.14 22 | dill==0.3.9 23 | dirtyjson==1.0.8 24 | distro==1.9.0 25 | dnspython==2.7.0 26 | fastapi==0.110.3 27 | filelock==3.16.1 28 | flatbuffers==24.3.25 29 | frozenlist==1.4.1 30 | fsspec==2024.9.0 31 | future==1.0.0 32 | google-ai-generativelanguage==0.6.6 33 | google-api-core==2.21.0 34 | google-api-python-client==2.149.0 35 | google-auth==2.35.0 36 | google-auth-httplib2==0.2.0 37 | google-crc32c==1.6.0 38 | google-generativeai==0.7.2 39 | googleapis-common-protos==1.65.0 40 | greenlet==3.1.1 41 | grpcio==1.66.2 42 | grpcio-status==1.62.3 43 | h11==0.14.0 44 | httpcore==1.0.6 45 | httplib2==0.22.0 46 | httpx==0.27.2 47 | humanfriendly==10.0 48 | idna==3.10 49 | ifaddr==0.2.0 50 | Jinja2==3.1.4 51 | jiter==0.6.1 52 | joblib==1.4.2 53 | jsonpatch==1.33 54 | jsonpointer==3.0.0 55 | langchain==0.3.3 56 | langchain-community==0.3.2 57 | langchain-core==0.3.10 58 | langchain-openai==0.2.2 59 | langchain-text-splitters==0.3.0 60 | langsmith==0.1.135 61 | llama-cloud==0.1.2 62 | llama-index==0.11.17 63 | llama-index-agent-openai==0.3.4 64 | llama-index-cli==0.3.1 65 | llama-index-core==0.11.18 66 | llama-index-embeddings-openai==0.2.5 67 | llama-index-indices-managed-llama-cloud==0.4.0 68 | llama-index-legacy==0.9.48.post3 69 | llama-index-llms-openai==0.2.13 70 | llama-index-multi-modal-llms-openai==0.2.2 71 | llama-index-program-openai==0.2.0 72 | llama-index-question-gen-openai==0.2.0 73 | llama-index-readers-file==0.2.2 74 | llama-index-readers-llama-parse==0.3.0 75 | llama-parse==0.5.7 76 | MarkupSafe==3.0.1 77 | marshmallow==3.22.0 78 | mpmath==1.3.0 79 | multidict==6.1.0 80 | mypy-extensions==1.0.0 81 | nest-asyncio==1.6.0 82 | networkx==3.4.1 83 | nltk==3.9.1 84 | numpy==1.26.4 85 | onnxruntime==1.19.2 86 | openai==1.51.2 87 | orjson==3.10.7 88 | outspeed==0.1.153 89 | packaging==24.1 90 | pandas==2.2.3 91 | pillow==10.4.0 92 | pinecone-client==5.0.1 93 | pinecone-plugin-inference==1.1.0 94 | pinecone-plugin-interface==0.0.7 95 | propcache==0.2.0 96 | proto-plus==1.24.0 97 | protobuf==4.25.5 98 | pyasn1==0.6.1 99 | pyasn1_modules==0.4.1 100 | pycparser==2.22 101 | pydantic==2.9.2 102 | pydantic-settings==2.5.2 103 | pydantic_core==2.23.4 104 | pydub==0.25.1 105 | pyee==12.0.0 106 | pylibsrtp==0.10.0 107 | pyloudnorm==0.1.1 108 | pyOpenSSL==24.2.1 109 | pyparsing==3.2.0 110 | pypdf==4.3.1 111 | python-dateutil==2.9.0.post0 112 | python-dotenv==1.0.1 113 | python-multipart==0.0.9 114 | pytz==2024.2 115 | PyYAML==6.0.2 116 | rank-bm25==0.2.2 117 | realtime-aioice==0.9.0 118 | regex==2024.9.11 119 | requests==2.32.3 120 | requests-toolbelt==1.0.0 121 | rsa==4.9 122 | scipy==1.14.1 123 | sentry-sdk==2.16.0 124 | setuptools==69.5.1 125 | silero-vad==5.1.2 126 | six==1.16.0 127 | sniffio==1.3.1 128 | soupsieve==2.6 129 | SQLAlchemy==2.0.35 130 | starlette==0.37.2 131 | striprtf==0.0.26 132 | sympy==1.13.3 133 | tenacity==8.5.0 134 | tiktoken==0.8.0 135 | torch==2.4.1 136 | torchaudio==2.4.1 137 | torchvision==0.19.1 138 | tqdm==4.66.5 139 | typing-inspect==0.9.0 140 | typing_extensions==4.12.2 141 | tzdata==2024.2 142 | uritemplate==4.1.1 143 | urllib3==1.26.20 144 | uvicorn==0.29.0 145 | websockets==12.0 146 | wheel==0.44.0 147 | wrapt==1.16.0 148 | yarl==1.15.2 149 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /server.py: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import logging 2 | import json 3 | import pandas as pd 4 | from fastapi import FastAPI, File, UploadFile, HTTPException 5 | from fastapi.middleware.cors import CORSMiddleware 6 | from pydantic import BaseModel 7 | from typing import List 8 | import shutil 9 | import os 10 | import uuid 11 | from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, as_completed 12 | import outspeed as sp 13 | from outspeed.server import RealtimeServer 14 | import os 15 | from trajectories.agent_self_implemented import kickoff_conversation 16 | from RAG_Engine.contextual_retriever import closest_matching_documents 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | app = RealtimeServer().get_app() 21 | 22 | # Add CORS middleware to allow all origins 23 | app.add_middleware( 24 | CORSMiddleware, 25 | allow_origins=["*"], # This allows all origins 26 | allow_credentials=True, 27 | allow_methods=["*"], 28 | allow_headers=["*"], 29 | ) 30 | 31 | import dotenv 32 | dotenv.load_dotenv() 33 | def check_outspeed_version(): 34 | import importlib.metadata 35 | 36 | from packaging import version 37 | 38 | required_version = "0.1.147" 39 | 40 | try: 41 | current_version = importlib.metadata.version("outspeed") 42 | if version.parse(current_version) < version.parse(required_version): 43 | raise ValueError(f"Outspeed version {current_version} is not greater than {required_version}.") 44 | else: 45 | print(f"Outspeed version {current_version} meets the requirement.") 46 | except importlib.metadata.PackageNotFoundError: 47 | raise ValueError("Outspeed package is not installed.") 48 | 49 | 50 | check_outspeed_version() 51 | # Set up basic logging configuration 52 | logging.basicConfig(level=logging.INFO) 53 | 54 | """ 55 | The @outspeed.App() decorator is used to wrap the VoiceBot class. 56 | This tells the outspeed server which functions to run. 57 | """ 58 | 59 | @sp.App() 60 | class VoiceBot: 61 | def __init__(self): 62 | self.case_facts = "" 63 | self.relevant_docs = {} 64 | 65 | async def setup(self) -> None: 66 | # List and load the conversations from trajectories/conversations 67 | 68 | 69 | self.static_system_prompt = """ 70 | You are a lawyer representing {} in a merger negotiation. Be firm and advocate strongly for your client's position while remaining professional and solution-oriented. Focus on {}'s core interests and long-term goals, and seek to find mutually beneficial solutions where possible. Use active listening to identify the priorities of the other party and address them in a way that aligns with {}'s objectives. Stay aligned with the case documents and ensure all proposals are legally sound and well-supported by precedent. Always keep the tone constructive and aim to foster a productive working relationship, even in moments of disagreement 71 | 72 | In addition, we simulated out some potential conversations between the parties. Here are the transcripts of those conversations: 73 | """.format("EPS", "EPS", "EPS") 74 | 75 | 76 | # Code below is used to seed the agents with the trajectories that were sampled. Commented out for now for token costs. 77 | # conversations_dir = "trajectories/conversations/jsons" 78 | # self.conversations = [] 79 | 80 | # if os.path.exists(conversations_dir): 81 | # for filename in os.listdir(conversations_dir): 82 | # if filename.endswith(".json"): 83 | # with open(os.path.join(conversations_dir, filename), "r") as file: 84 | # conversation = json.load(file) 85 | # self.conversations.append(conversation) 86 | # else: 87 | # print(f"Directory {conversations_dir} does not exist.") 88 | 89 | # print(len(self.conversations)) 90 | # for i, conversation in enumerate(self.conversations): 91 | # system_prompt += f'\n\n------------SIMULATION {i}------------\n\n' 92 | 93 | # for i, message in enumerate(conversation): 94 | # system_prompt += f"{message['speaker']}: {message['message']}\n\n" 95 | # if i >= 0: 96 | # break 97 | # system_prompt += "--------------------------------\n\n" 98 | 99 | # print(system_prompt) 100 | 101 | # print(system_prompt) 102 | # self.llm_node = sp.OpenAIRealtime(system_prompt=system_prompt) 103 | 104 | @sp.streaming_endpoint() 105 | async def run(self, audio_input_queue: sp.AudioStream, text_input_queue: sp.TextStream) -> sp.AudioStream: 106 | audio_output_stream: sp.AudioStream 107 | print(f"Received input audio of type {text_input_queue.get_first_element_without_removing()}") 108 | 109 | # Use case_facts and relevant_docs in the system prompt 110 | system_prompt = self.static_system_prompt + f"Here are the facts of the case: {self.case_facts}\n\nHere are the relevant precedents: {self.relevant_docs}\n\n" 111 | self.llm_node = sp.OpenAIRealtime(system_prompt=system_prompt) 112 | 113 | audio_output_stream = self.llm_node.run(text_input_queue, audio_input_queue) 114 | return audio_output_stream 115 | 116 | async def teardown(self) -> None: 117 | await self.llm_node.close() 118 | 119 | @app.get("/ping") 120 | def ping(): 121 | return {"message": "pong"} 122 | 123 | # Global state to store case facts and relevant documents 124 | global_state = { 125 | "case_facts": "", 126 | "relevant_docs": {} 127 | } 128 | 129 | @app.post("/upload") 130 | async def upload_file(file: UploadFile = File(...)): 131 | try: 132 | upload_directory = "uploads" 133 | os.makedirs(upload_directory, exist_ok=True) 134 | file_path = os.path.join(upload_directory, file.filename) 135 | 136 | with open(file_path, "wb") as buffer: 137 | shutil.copyfileobj(file.file, buffer) 138 | 139 | # Read the content of the uploaded file and store it as case_facts 140 | with open(file_path, "r") as f: 141 | global_state["case_facts"] = f.read() 142 | 143 | # Call the function to get relevant documents 144 | relevant_docs = closest_matching_documents(file_path) 145 | 146 | # Store the relevant documents in the global state 147 | global_state["relevant_docs"][file.filename] = relevant_docs 148 | 149 | return {"filename": file.filename, "message": "File uploaded successfully"} 150 | except Exception as e: 151 | logging.error(f"Error during file upload: {e}") 152 | raise HTTPException(status_code=500, detail=str(e)) 153 | 154 | @app.get("/relevant-docs/{filename}") 155 | async def get_relevant_docs(filename: str): 156 | if filename in global_state["relevant_docs"]: 157 | return {"relevant_docs": global_state["relevant_docs"][filename]} 158 | else: 159 | raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="No relevant documents found") 160 | 161 | # In-memory storage for tasks and their statuses 162 | tasks = {} 163 | conversations = {} 164 | 165 | class RunTrajectoriesPayload(BaseModel): 166 | n: int 167 | 168 | class StartNegotiationPayload(BaseModel): 169 | simulated_info: List[str] 170 | 171 | @app.post("/upload") 172 | async def upload_pdf(file: UploadFile = File(...)): 173 | raise NotImplementedError 174 | # try: 175 | # file_location = f"files/{file.filename}" 176 | # with open(file_location, "wb") as buffer: 177 | # shutil.copyfileobj(file.file, buffer) 178 | # return {"info": f"file '{file.filename}' saved at '{file_location}'"} 179 | # except Exception as e: 180 | # raise HTTPException(status_code=500, detail=str(e)) 181 | 182 | @app.post("/run-trajectories") 183 | async def run_trajectories(payload: RunTrajectoriesPayload): 184 | task_id = str(uuid.uuid4()) 185 | tasks[task_id] = "running" 186 | n = payload.n 187 | conversations[task_id] = [] 188 | 189 | import pandas as pd 190 | 191 | range_list = list(range(1, n+1)) 192 | 193 | # Create a pandas DataFrame with n rows, each marked as False 194 | df = pd.DataFrame({"id": range_list, "status": [False] * n}) 195 | df.to_csv(f"trajectories/status.csv", index=False) 196 | 197 | # Retrieve case_facts and relevant_docs from the global state 198 | case_facts = global_state["case_facts"] 199 | relevant_docs = global_state["relevant_docs"] 200 | 201 | with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=n) as executor: 202 | futures = [executor.submit(kickoff_conversation, i, case_facts=case_facts, relevant_precedent=relevant_docs) for i in range_list] 203 | 204 | for future in as_completed(futures): 205 | future.result() 206 | 207 | return {"task_id": task_id} 208 | 209 | @app.get("/status") 210 | async def get_status(task_id: str): 211 | df = pd.read_csv("trajectories/status.csv") 212 | value = df.loc[df['id'] == int(task_id), 'status'].values[0] 213 | return bool(value) 214 | 215 | @app.get("/num-trajectories") 216 | async def get_num_trajectories(): 217 | df = pd.read_csv("trajectories/status.csv") 218 | return len(df) 219 | 220 | @app.get("/get-trajectory") 221 | async def get_trajectory(task_id: str): 222 | save_folder = "trajectories/conversations/jsons" 223 | conversation_file = os.path.join(save_folder, f"{task_id}.json") 224 | if not os.path.exists(conversation_file): 225 | raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Conversation file not found") 226 | with open(conversation_file, "r") as f: 227 | conversation = json.load(f) 228 | return {"conversation": conversation} 229 | 230 | @app.post("/start-negotiation") 231 | async def start_negotiation(payload: StartNegotiationPayload): 232 | # Placeholder for starting negotiation with voice API 233 | return {"info": "Negotiation started with provided simulated info"} 234 | 235 | @app.post("/end-negotiation") 236 | async def end_negotiation(): 237 | # Placeholder for ending negotiation with voice API 238 | return {"info": "Negotiation ended"} 239 | 240 | 241 | if __name__ == "__main__": 242 | VoiceBot().start() 243 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/__pycache__/agent_self_implemented.cpython-310.pyc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/trajectories/__pycache__/agent_self_implemented.cpython-310.pyc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/__pycache__/agent_self_implemented.cpython-312.pyc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akshgarg7/Specter/a0e1c654302ae2c0d053abf74a732e7a914bf7f9/trajectories/__pycache__/agent_self_implemented.cpython-312.pyc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/agent_self_implemented.py: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | import pandas as pd 2 | import json 3 | from openai import OpenAI 4 | import os 5 | import threading 6 | 7 | # print(os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY")) 8 | # if os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY"): 9 | # del os.environ["OPENAI_API_KEY"] 10 | 11 | 12 | import dotenv 13 | dotenv.load_dotenv() 14 | 15 | client = OpenAI(api_key=os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY")) 16 | # case_facts = open("cases/negotiation_case.txt", "r").read() 17 | 18 | # Set up your OpenAI API key 19 | class TextAgent: 20 | def __init__(self, name, system_message): 21 | self.name = name 22 | self.system_message = system_message 23 | self.conversation_history = [{"role": "system", "content": self.system_message}] # Initialize with system message 24 | 25 | def get_response(self, prompt): 26 | response = client.chat.completions.create( 27 | model="gpt-4o-mini", 28 | messages=prompt, 29 | temperature=0.8 30 | ) 31 | return response.choices[0].message.content.strip() 32 | 33 | def add_message(self, role, content): 34 | self.conversation_history.append({"role": role, "content": content}) 35 | 36 | def respond(self): 37 | # print(self.conversation_history) 38 | return self.get_response(self.conversation_history) 39 | 40 | 41 | def consensus_reached(conversation_history): 42 | prompt = [ 43 | {"role": "system", "content": "You are an expert in analyzing negotiation conversations to determine if a consensus has been reached. Only say that a consensus has been reached if the two parties have agreed on all terms. If there are any disagreements, return false. "}, 44 | {"role": "user", "content": f"Here is the conversation history: {conversation_history}. Has a consensus been reached? Respond with 'true' or 'false'. Output a json formatted as {{'consensus': true/false}}."} 45 | ] 46 | 47 | response = client.chat.completions.create( 48 | model="gpt-4o-mini", 49 | messages=prompt, 50 | response_format={"type": "json_object"}, 51 | temperature=0.0 52 | ) 53 | 54 | consensus = response.choices[0].message.content.strip() 55 | consensus_json = json.loads(consensus) 56 | return consensus_json["consensus"] 57 | 58 | def simulate_conversation(agent1, agent2, initial_message, num_turns=5): 59 | conversation_history = [] 60 | agents = [] 61 | 62 | # Start the conversation 63 | agent1.add_message("user", initial_message) 64 | agent2.add_message("assistant", initial_message) 65 | conversation_history.append(initial_message) 66 | agents.append(agent1.name) 67 | 68 | # print(f"Conversation Start: {initial_message}") 69 | 70 | for turn in range(num_turns): 71 | # Agent 2 responds 72 | agent2_response = agent2.respond() 73 | agent2.add_message("assistant", agent2_response) 74 | agent1.add_message("user", agent2_response) 75 | conversation_history.append(agent2_response) 76 | agents.append(agent2.name) 77 | 78 | # Agent 1 responds 79 | agent1_response = agent1.respond() 80 | agent1.add_message("assistant", agent1_response) 81 | agent2.add_message("user", agent1_response) 82 | conversation_history.append(agent1_response) 83 | agents.append(agent1.name) 84 | 85 | if consensus_reached(conversation_history): 86 | # print("Consensus reached!") 87 | break 88 | 89 | return conversation_history, agents 90 | 91 | def store_conversation_history(conversation_history, agents, save_path): 92 | with open(save_path, "w") as f: 93 | for line, agent in zip(conversation_history, agents): 94 | f.write(f"{agent}: {line}\n") 95 | 96 | def store_conversation_history_json(conversation_history, agents, save_path): 97 | conversation_data = [] 98 | for line, agent in zip(conversation_history, agents): 99 | conversation_data.append({"speaker": agent, "message": line}) 100 | 101 | with open(save_path, "w") as f: 102 | json.dump(conversation_data, f, indent=4) 103 | 104 | conversation_starters = { 105 | 1: "Hi", 106 | 2: "i hate you", 107 | 3: "let's discuss the equity split and leadership structure for the merger.", 108 | 4: "We need more money", 109 | 5: "I want to be CEO", 110 | 6: "I want to be in charge of the new office", 111 | 7: "I want 4 board seats", 112 | 8: "We can't merge", 113 | 9: "We have larger teams than you", 114 | 10: "Raise your standards", 115 | } 116 | 117 | def update_status_csv(run_id): 118 | status_file_path = "trajectories/status.csv" 119 | lock = threading.Lock() 120 | with lock: 121 | df = pd.read_csv(status_file_path) 122 | if run_id in df["id"].values: 123 | df.loc[df["id"] == run_id, "status"] = True 124 | else: 125 | df = pd.concat([df, pd.DataFrame([{"id": run_id, "status": True}])], ignore_index=True) 126 | df.to_csv(status_file_path, index=False) 127 | 128 | def kickoff_conversation(run_id, max_turns=2, case_facts = "", relevant_precedent = ""): 129 | # print(f"Kicking off conversation {run_id}") 130 | # Create two agents with system messages 131 | system_message_template = """ 132 | You are a lawyer representing {} in a merger negotiation. Be firm and advocate strongly for your client's position while remaining professional and solution-oriented. Focus on {}'s core interests and long-term goals, and seek to find mutually beneficial solutions where possible. Use active listening to identify the priorities of the other party and address them in a way that aligns with {}'s objectives. Stay aligned with the case documents and ensure all proposals are legally sound and well-supported by precedent. Always keep the tone constructive and aim to foster a productive working relationship, even in moments of disagreement. Keep your comments to less than 50 words. 133 | 134 | ========================================================== 135 | Here are the facts of the case: {} 136 | 137 | ========================================================== 138 | Here are the relevant precedents: {} 139 | """ 140 | 141 | agent1_system_message = system_message_template.format("GTI", "GTI", "GTI", case_facts, relevant_precedent) 142 | agent2_system_message = system_message_template.format("EPS", "EPS", "EPS", case_facts, relevant_precedent) 143 | 144 | agent1 = TextAgent("Harvey (GTI)", agent1_system_message) 145 | agent2 = TextAgent("Mike (EPS)", agent2_system_message) 146 | 147 | # Simulate the conversation 148 | # initial_message = conversation_starters.get(run_id, "Hello") 149 | initial_message = "Hello" 150 | conversation_history, agents = simulate_conversation(agent1, agent2, initial_message=initial_message, num_turns=max_turns) 151 | store_conversation_history(conversation_history, agents, f"trajectories/conversations/txts/{run_id}.txt") 152 | store_conversation_history_json(conversation_history, agents, f"trajectories/conversations/jsons/{run_id}.json") 153 | # print(f"ID {run_id}: {conversation_history[-1]}") 154 | update_status_csv(run_id) 155 | if __name__ == "__main__": 156 | kickoff_conversation(1) 157 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/1.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Hello! How may I assist you today regarding the merger negotiation between EPS and the potential partner companies?" 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "I\u2019d like to discuss the valuation and equity split. GTI proposes a 60/40 split, reflecting our greater contribution. It\u2019s essential we maintain this structure to ensure alignment with our long-term goals. How can we find common ground on this critical issue?" 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "I appreciate GTI's perspective on the equity split. However, EPS's advancements in energy storage warrant a more equitable 55/45 split. This would not only recognize our contributions but also foster a collaborative spirit for future innovation. Let\u2019s explore potential performance-based adjustments to align our interests effectively." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I appreciate EPS's viewpoint on the equity split. However, maintaining a 60/40 structure ensures GTI's commitment to driving the merged entity's success. Performance-based adjustments could be a viable solution, but let\u2019s ensure they are realistic and reflect GTI\u2019s significant market presence. How does that sound?" 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/2.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Hello, thank you for engaging in this crucial negotiation. Let's prioritize EPS's interests while seeking a fair and beneficial agreement for both parties. Your insights will be valuable in crafting a mutually beneficial proposal. Let's discuss the valuation and equity split first." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "Thank you for your collaboration. While we recognize EPS's contributions, GTI's proposed 60-40 equity split reflects our revenue and profit strengths. This is essential for ensuring long-term stability and growth for both entities. We are open to discussing how we can align our interests further." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "I appreciate your acknowledgment of EPS's contributions. However, given EPS's advanced energy storage technologies and their market potential, we confidently advocate for a 55-45 split. This will not only reflect our shared value but also incentivize both parties to drive innovation post-merger. Let's explore this further." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I understand the importance of the advanced energy storage technologies. However, to ensure GTI's commitment to leading the merger, we believe the 60-40 split is crucial for maintaining our strategic direction. Perhaps a performance-based incentive structure could align both parties' interests and reward innovation over time?" 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/3.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Good day. Let\u2019s remain focused on EPS's strategic objectives and ensure a fair merger structure. We advocate for a 55%-45% equity split and a co-CEO arrangement for seamless integration. We aim to protect our IP and ensure minimal employee disruption. Let's explore these points collaboratively." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "I appreciate your perspective and recognize the importance of your strategic objectives. However, GTI's 65%-35% equity proposal reflects our significant contributions and market positioning. Regarding leadership, a single CEO from GTI ensures clear direction for the merged entity. Let's discuss how we can structure IP protections and employee transition plans that satisfy both parties." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "I understand GTI's position, but EPS's advanced energy storage technology warrants a more equitable 55%-45% split. A co-CEO model will foster collaboration during integration, ensuring both companies' strengths are maximized. For IP, we propose joint ownership with protections in place. Let's work together on an employee transition plan that minimizes layoffs while addressing overlaps." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "Your points are noted, but GTI must prioritize its strategic interests. We propose a compromise at a 60%-40% equity split, recognizing both contributions while maintaining our lead. A single CEO will streamline decision-making, ensuring effective integration. Joint ownership of IP is acceptable, provided GTI has access for development. We can certainly collaborate on a thoughtful employee transition plan that minimizes disruption while addressing overlaps." 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/4.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "I appreciate your engagement. Let\u2019s focus on how the merger can maximize value for both parties, ensuring a fair equity split that reflects EPS's contributions. I\u2019m eager to hear your thoughts on the proposed terms and how we can bridge any gaps constructively." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "Thank you for your commitment to collaboration. GTI believes a 60-40 equity split accurately reflects contributions and aligns with our long-term goals. We\u2019re keen to discuss how EPS's strengths in energy storage can complement our solar capabilities, ensuring a balanced partnership. Let\u2019s explore this further." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "I appreciate your perspective on the equity split. However, EPS's advanced energy storage technology significantly enhances our combined offering. I propose we consider a 55-45 split as a starting point to acknowledge this contribution while fostering collaboration. How can we ensure all parties feel valued in this partnership?" 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I understand the importance of recognizing EPS's contributions. However, GTI's initial proposal of 60-40 is grounded in revenue and profit projections. To foster collaboration, we could implement performance-based incentives post-merger, ensuring both parties benefit as we achieve mutual goals. Let's explore this approach together." 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/5.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Hello. As we move forward in this negotiation, it's vital to prioritize EPS's interests and ensure a fair and beneficial merger. Let's discuss the equity split, leadership structure, and IP rights to create a strong foundation for our partnership. I'm here to facilitate a constructive dialogue." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "I appreciate your willingness to discuss these key issues. For the equity split, GTI's proposal reflects our significant contributions and market position. Regarding leadership, we believe a CEO from GTI will provide the necessary vision for our joint venture's success. As for IP rights, we seek a collaborative approach that allows for shared innovation. Let\u2019s explore how we can address your concerns while maintaining GTI's core interests." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "Thank you for your insights. EPS appreciates GTI's position. However, we firmly believe a 55%-45% equity split better reflects our advanced energy storage contributions and market potential. For leadership, a co-CEO model for the first two years would ensure balanced integration, fostering innovation. Regarding IP, we propose joint ownership with clear development commitments. Let's work toward a solution that satisfies both parties." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I appreciate EPS's perspective and your commitment to collaboration. However, GTI's valuation supporting a 65%-35% equity split is crucial for aligning incentives and recognizing our combined strengths. We respect the co-CEO proposal but remain firm on having our CEO lead for strategic continuity. For IP, we can consider joint ownership with clear development commitments, ensuring both parties benefit. Let's refine these points to reach a fair compromise." 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/6.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Thank you for the introduction. As we proceed with these negotiations, let's focus on achieving a fair equity split and ensure the leadership structure reflects both parties' contributions and values. I'm here to advocate strongly for EPS's interests while also fostering collaboration for a successful merger." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "I appreciate your commitment to collaboration. For a fair equity split, GTI's proposal of 60% aligns with our significant market share and established brand. We believe this split will facilitate strong leadership under GTI's CEO while also recognizing EPS's contributions through key operational roles. Let's ensure a balanced approach." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "I appreciate your perspective on the equity split. However, given EPS's advanced energy storage technology and future growth potential, a 55%-45% split is more equitable. This adjustment recognizes EPS's critical role in innovation and aligns with our long-term goals. Let\u2019s work together to find a balanced solution." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I understand the value EPS brings with its innovative technology. However, GTI's 60%-40% proposal is grounded in our current market leadership and revenue contributions. We can consider performance-based incentives tied to shared growth targets to further recognize EPS's contributions while maintaining the integrity of our equity structure." 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/7.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Thank you for your engagement. Let's focus on achieving a fair equity split that acknowledges EPS's valuable IP contributions while respecting GTI's market presence. We propose a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) split as a reasonable compromise. This structure supports long-term growth objectives for both parties." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "I appreciate your willingness to engage in a constructive discussion. The 60%-40% equity split ensures GTI's leadership reflects our significant market presence while fairly recognizing EPS's IP contributions. This structure will drive our joint growth and innovation. Let's work toward finalizing this agreement." 13 | } 14 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/8.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Hello. Let's discuss how we can move forward in the negotiation effectively. EPS is committed to achieving a fair equity split, ensuring leadership collaboration, and protecting our intellectual property rights. Your input on these priorities is valuable for creating a mutually beneficial merger." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "Absolutely, I appreciate your focus on collaboration. For the equity split, we believe a 60/40 arrangement aligns with contributions and market positions. Regarding leadership, we support a CEO from GTI while incorporating an EPS COO for balance. As for IP, we can assure full access while protecting EPS's innovations. Let's continue this constructive dialogue." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "Thank you for your response. The 60/40 equity split is a step closer, but EPS justifies a 55/45 split based on our strong R&D contributions. Regarding leadership, a co-CEO model for the initial two years would foster better integration. For IP, mutual access is crucial, but protections for EPS's innovations must remain robust." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I appreciate EPS's strong R&D contributions, but a 60/40 split reflects GTI's valuation and market strength. We can explore a performance-based adjustment after two years. For leadership, we can consider a clear delineation of roles rather than co-CEO, ensuring effective decision-making. Regarding IP, we commit to robust protections while allowing access for innovation growth. Let's find common ground." 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/jsons/9.json: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | [ 2 | { 3 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 4 | "message": "Hello" 5 | }, 6 | { 7 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 8 | "message": "Hello. As we navigate these merger negotiations, EPS is committed to ensuring a fair equity split that reflects our value, advocating for a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) division. This aligns with EPS's advanced energy storage technology while fostering a strong, collaborative future together." 9 | }, 10 | { 11 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 12 | "message": "I appreciate your perspective on the equity split. However, based on our significant revenue and profit contributions, a 65% (GTI) to 35% (EPS) division is essential for GTI. This structure better reflects our shared goals and sustainability of the merged entity. Let's explore how we can bridge our positions." 13 | }, 14 | { 15 | "speaker": "Mike (EPS)", 16 | "message": "I understand GTI's position on the equity split; however, EPS's innovative energy storage technology warrants a more equitable 55%-45% division. This approach not only recognizes our contributions but also strengthens our joint market position and fosters a collaborative spirit. Let's discuss potential synergies to reach a balanced agreement." 17 | }, 18 | { 19 | "speaker": "Harvey (GTI)", 20 | "message": "I hear your concerns regarding the equity split and appreciate your focus on collaboration. To foster this partnership, we propose a middle ground of 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS). This recognizes EPS's contributions while ensuring the merger's long-term viability and GTI's leadership in the market. Let's discuss further synergies." 21 | } 22 | ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/0.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Thank you for bringing this up. The equity split and leadership structure are pivotal components of the merger, and it's important that we address these thoughtfully to ensure a successful collaboration between GTI and EPS. 2 | 3 | ### **Equity Split** 4 | 5 | GTI initially proposed a 65% to 35% equity split based on our revenue and profit contributions. However, recognizing the importance of finding common ground, we have revised our stance and suggest a more balanced approach of 60% for GTI and 40% for EPS. This proposal reflects a fair acknowledgment of EPS's valuable battery technology while ensuring that GTI retains a majority share, which is essential for maintaining our strategic direction and long-term goals. 6 | 7 | We believe this equitable distribution will foster a sense of partnership and shared responsibility, aligning both companies toward achieving our ambitious growth targets in the integrated renewable energy market. 8 | 9 | ### **Leadership Structure** 10 | 11 | Regarding the leadership structure, GTI strongly believes that having our CEO lead the merged entity is crucial. Given GTI's established market presence and experience, this leadership position would provide the necessary vision and strategic oversight to navigate the complexities of the merger and drive the combined company forward. 12 | 13 | However, I'm open to discussing your proposal for a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years. Perhaps we could consider appointing our CEO as the CEO and your COO as the President or an equally significant executive role during this transitional period. This would ensure representation from both sides while allowing for a clear leadership hierarchy, which can be particularly beneficial in the early stages of integration. 14 | 15 | ### **Next Steps** 16 | 17 | I encourage you to share your thoughts on this proposal. It’s essential that we listen actively to your priorities, as I believe finding a mutually beneficial solution will set a positive tone for our ongoing discussions. Together, we can ensure that the merger not only aligns with our respective interests but also positions us competitively in the marketplace. 18 | Thank you for bringing up these crucial points—equity split and leadership structure are foundational to a successful merger. 19 | 20 | ### **Equity Split** 21 | 22 | GTI initially proposed a 65% equity stake for GTI and 35% for EPS, based on our substantial market share, revenue contributions, and strong financial performance. However, we understand that EPS has expressed a desire for a more balanced split, suggesting a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) distribution. 23 | 24 | To reach a mutually beneficial agreement, we propose a compromise of a **60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS)** equity split. This acknowledges the value that both parties bring to the table—GTI’s established market presence and EPS's innovative battery technology—while ensuring GTI retains a controlling interest that reflects our contributions to the merged entity’s future direction and strategy. 25 | 26 | ### **Leadership Structure** 27 | 28 | Leadership is another area where we see potential for alignment. GTI proposes having its CEO lead the merged organization, given our proven track record and experience in the solar market. This is essential for setting a clear strategic vision and maintaining investor confidence. 29 | 30 | However, we also recognize EPS’s proposal for a co-CEO arrangement during the initial integration phase. This could help facilitate smoother transitions and address any apprehensions from EPS stakeholders. 31 | 32 | To find a middle ground, we suggest the following leadership structure: 33 | - **CEO from GTI**: This ensures a strong leadership presence aligned with GTI’s strategic objectives. 34 | - **COO from EPS**: This role would focus on integrating EPS’s advanced technology and operational processes into the new organization, leveraging their expertise in battery storage systems. 35 | - **CTO**: A newly created position to be filled jointly, reflecting the innovative strengths of both companies and fostering collaboration in R&D. 36 | 37 | This structure balances both companies' interests and expertise while fostering a collaborative leadership environment. 38 | 39 | I look forward to your thoughts on these proposals and to working together to finalize terms that respect the priorities of both parties. 40 | Absolutely, these are critical components of the merger negotiation, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. 41 | 42 | ### **Equity Split:** 43 | GTI is proposing a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) equity split in recognition of our respective contributions in revenue and profit. Given GTI's established market presence, strong financial performance, and significant R&D capabilities, we believe this split accurately reflects the value each company brings to the table. 44 | 45 | However, I understand that EPS sees the value of their advanced battery technology as a strong justification for a higher equity stake. I’d like to explore how we can find common ground here. For instance, if we can agree to the 60/40 split but include performance milestones that allow EPS to earn additional equity based on achieving certain integration and revenue targets post-merger, this could align our interests while still honoring GTI’s contributions. 46 | 47 | ### **Leadership Structure:** 48 | Regarding the leadership structure, GTI’s preference is to have our CEO lead the merged entity, which would provide consistency and leverage our established market strategy. 49 | 50 | That being said, I recognize EPS’s proposal for a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years. This could potentially offer a smoother integration process, allowing both companies to maintain a sense of leadership balance. However, I would propose that we consider a slightly modified approach with a clear delineation of responsibilities to prevent any overlap in decision-making. For instance, GTI could lead overall corporate strategy while EPS could focus on operational execution during the integration phase. 51 | 52 | I’m committed to ensuring that both parties feel valued and represented in this new entity. I’d like to hear your thoughts on these proposals and any specific concerns you might have. Let's work together to create a structure that supports both our long-term goals. 53 | Thank you for bringing up these critical topics for discussion. 54 | 55 | **Equity Split:** 56 | GTI's initial proposal for a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split was grounded in our respective financial contributions and market positions. Given that GTI holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market with substantial revenue and net profit, we believe this reflects our substantial investment and market presence. 57 | 58 | However, in the spirit of collaboration and recognizing the value that EPS brings through its advanced battery technology, we have considered your perspective and are open to a compromise. We propose a revised equity split of 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS). This adjustment acknowledges EPS's contributions while still aligning with GTI's long-term interests and financial stability. 59 | 60 | **Leadership Structure:** 61 | On the leadership front, GTI advocates for its CEO to lead the merged entity, reflecting the experience and stability that our leadership has demonstrated in navigating the solar industry. At the same time, we recognize the importance of ensuring a smooth integration and the value of EPS's input. 62 | 63 | To that end, we believe a balanced approach would be beneficial: we propose that GTI's CEO assume the role of the merged entity's CEO, while we appoint a COO from EPS. This arrangement would leverage GTI's market experience while ensuring that EPS's strategic insights are integrated into the leadership structure. Additionally, we suggest the creation of a CTO role that can be filled jointly to drive innovation in both solar and storage technologies. 64 | 65 | In summary, our proposed terms for the equity split and leadership structure aim to create a foundation for a successful partnership, while also aligning with GTI’s core interests and long-term goals. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this proposal and any specific concerns or priorities you may have regarding these elements. 66 | Thank you for bringing this crucial topic to the table. The equity split and leadership structure are foundational to ensuring a successful merger between GTI and EPS, and I appreciate the opportunity to address these matters. 67 | 68 | ### **Equity Split** 69 | 70 | Initially, GTI proposed a 65% equity stake for ourselves and 35% for EPS, based on our revenue contributions and market position. However, after careful consideration and in the interest of fostering goodwill and cooperation, we are willing to discuss a revised split of 60% for GTI and 40% for EPS. This adjustment acknowledges EPS's valuable contributions, particularly their advanced battery technology, while still reflecting GTI's stronger market presence and profitability. 71 | 72 | ### **Leadership Structure** 73 | 74 | Regarding the leadership structure, GTI firmly believes that our CEO should lead the merged entity to ensure a unified vision and leverage our established operational frameworks. However, we also recognize the importance of maintaining a collaborative environment during the integration of our two companies. 75 | 76 | To address EPS's suggestion of a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years, we propose an alternative: appointing GTI’s CEO as the CEO of the merged entity while designating EPS's COO role as the Chief Operating Officer. Additionally, we could consider creating a newly formed position of Chief Technology Officer (CTO) that would be jointly filled, ensuring both organizations have a voice in shaping the strategic direction of our R&D efforts. 77 | 78 | This structure allows us to have a decisive leadership presence while fostering collaboration. It ensures that both companies' strengths are capitalized upon, ultimately driving the success of the merged entity. 79 | 80 | ### **Next Steps** 81 | 82 | I’d like to hear your thoughts on this equity split and leadership proposal. Our goal is to find a mutually beneficial arrangement that supports both parties' long-term objectives. We are committed to working together to ensure a successful transition and integration process. 83 | Thank you for bringing up these critical points of discussion. The equity split and leadership structure are indeed fundamental to the success of the merger between GreenTech Industries (GTI) and EcoPower Solutions (EPS). 84 | 85 | ### Equity Split 86 | GTI originally proposed a 65% to 35% equity split based on revenue and profit contributions, which we believe accurately reflects the substantial investment and market presence GTI has cultivated over the years. However, to facilitate a productive negotiation, we are willing to consider a compromise at 60% for GTI and 40% for EPS. This adjustment recognizes the value of EPS's cutting-edge battery technology and its market contributions. 87 | 88 | This proposed split will ensure that both parties feel fairly represented in the new entity while also aligning with our strategic goals of leveraging our combined strengths for greater market impact. We believe this approach will enhance commitment from both sides and foster a collaborative environment as we move forward. 89 | 90 | ### Leadership Structure 91 | As for the leadership structure, GTI believes that having our CEO lead the merged entity is crucial for maintaining strategic direction and stability during the integration period. However, we understand EPS's suggestion for a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years, which aims to ensure a smooth integration. 92 | 93 | We propose an alternative that we believe strikes a balance: appointing a CEO from GTI, supported by a COO from EPS. This would allow for a clear vision and leadership from GTI while also incorporating EPS's operational insights in a key leadership role. Additionally, we suggest creating a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) position to be filled jointly, recognizing that innovation will be key as we combine our R&D strengths. 94 | 95 | This structure not only honors the contributions of both companies but also sets the stage for a unified approach to innovation and market expansion. 96 | 97 | I am keen to hear any additional thoughts or concerns you may have regarding these proposals, as it’s important that we align on these foundational aspects for a successful merger. 98 | Thank you for bringing up these crucial elements of the merger negotiation. Let’s delve into both the equity split and the leadership structure, keeping GTI's core interests and long-term goals in mind while also looking for constructive solutions. 99 | 100 | ### **Equity Split** 101 | 102 | GTI initially proposed a 65% equity stake, reflecting our significant revenue and profit contributions. I recognize that EPS believes a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split is more appropriate due to their advanced battery technology. However, I would like to propose a compromise position of a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) split. This offers a balanced approach that acknowledges EPS's strengths while ensuring that GTI's substantial contributions are fairly recognized. 103 | 104 | This proposed split not only aligns with the projected financial synergies but also ensures that both parties can invest in the future growth and development of the combined entity. I believe this fair compromise could provide a foundation for a prosperous partnership. 105 | 106 | ### **Leadership Structure** 107 | 108 | Regarding the leadership structure, GTI's desire to have its CEO lead the merged entity is rooted in our established market presence and operational experience. However, I appreciate EPS's suggestion for a co-CEO arrangement to facilitate a smooth integration. 109 | 110 | To strike a balance, I propose that we appoint the CEO from GTI while also designating a COO from EPS. This structure would leverage GTI’s leadership experience while ensuring that EPS’s operational knowledge is integrated into the management framework. Additionally, creating a newly formed CTO position, to be jointly filled, can enhance innovation and R&D efforts, capitalizing on the strengths of both companies. 111 | 112 | This leadership model not only mitigates the concerns of both parties but also fosters collaboration, ensuring that the merger is successful from the outset. 113 | 114 | I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these proposals, and I’m committed to finding a solution that serves both GTI's interests and addresses EPS's key priorities. 115 | Thank you for bringing this important topic to the table. As we consider the equity split and leadership structure, it's crucial to align our discussions with the overall strategic goals of the merger while ensuring that both parties feel valued and heard. 116 | 117 | **Equity Split:** 118 | GTI has proposed a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) equity split. This proposal is based on comprehensive analyses of our respective financial contributions, market positioning, and long-term value creation potential. 119 | 120 | 1. **Revenue and Profit Contributions:** 121 | - GTI's financials indicate a robust revenue stream and a solid market share in solar panels, which is crucial to the combined entity's growth. 122 | - EPS's advanced battery technology undeniably adds significant value, particularly as we aim to enhance integrated renewable energy solutions. 123 | 124 | We understand that EPS believes a 55%-45% split is more reflective of their contributions. However, we encourage a collaborative re-evaluation of the overall value each party brings—especially the synergies and innovation that will arise from this merger. Our proposal aims for a fair compromise that recognizes GTI's current market position while still providing EPS with a significant stake in the new entity. 125 | 126 | **Leadership Structure:** 127 | Regarding leadership, GTI strongly advocates for its CEO to lead the merged entity. We believe that having established leadership, particularly from a company with a successful track record in the solar industry, will provide the stability and vision required during the critical initial phase of the merger. 128 | 129 | 1. **Co-CEO Arrangement:** While EPS has proposed a co-CEO model for the first two years, we are open to an alternative structure that provides representation from both companies without diluting leadership effectiveness. 130 | 131 | For instance, we propose: 132 | 133 | - **CEO from GTI**: To leverage GTI's experience in operational management and strategic growth. 134 | - **COO from EPS**: This will provide EPS with a crucial leadership role and ensure that the integration of EPS’s innovative culture and technology is maintained. 135 | - **CTO Position**: A newly created role, jointly filled, will be pivotal in guiding our R&D efforts, ensuring that both companies’ strengths are harnessed effectively. 136 | 137 | We believe this structure aligns well with both parties’ interests, providing a solid foundation for collaborative leadership while minimizing potential conflicts during the integration process. 138 | 139 | I invite your thoughts on these proposals and any specific concerns you may have, so we can work towards a resolution that honors both GTI's objectives and EPS's aspirations. 140 | Thank you for bringing those critical topics to the table. As we focus on the equity split and leadership structure, it's essential to consider the long-term objectives of both GTI and EPS while ensuring a fair and motivating arrangement for both parties. 141 | 142 | ### **Equity Split** 143 | 144 | From GTI's perspective, we believe that a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) equity split is a fair compromise, recognizing GTI's established market presence and profitability, along with the substantial contributions EPS brings through its innovative battery technology. This split reflects a balanced approach based on each company's revenue and profit contributions, as well as the strategic advantages gained from merging our strengths. 145 | 146 | While EPS has proposed a 55-45 split based on their technology, it's crucial to acknowledge that GTI has been a significant player in the solar market with a considerable existing revenue stream. The proposed 60-40 split allows both parties to benefit from the combined entity's future growth while also protecting GTI's investments and interests. 147 | 148 | ### **Leadership Structure** 149 | 150 | Leadership is another vital aspect of this merger, as it will set the tone for the integration process and future operations. GTI's preference is for its CEO to lead the merged entity. This decision is based on the need for strong leadership and experience in navigating complex market dynamics, especially as we aim to expand our reach and innovate in renewable energy solutions. 151 | 152 | However, I recognize that EPS has proposed a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years, which indicates their desire for collaborative leadership during the transition. While I understand the merits of ensuring a smooth integration, I believe that having a single CEO from GTI will provide clear direction and streamline decision-making processes during this pivotal period. 153 | 154 | To bridge our positions, we could explore a structure where the CEO from GTI leads, while a COO from EPS is appointed to oversee operational integration. Additionally, creating a CTO position, filled jointly, could help leverage the strengths of both companies in R&D efforts. 155 | 156 | ### **Next Steps** 157 | 158 | I encourage us to discuss these proposals further, listening to your concerns and priorities. Our goal is to reach an agreement that respects the foundations of both companies while aligning our strategic visions for the future. If we can find a common ground that addresses your interests in these areas, we will be well on our way to a successful merger. 159 | Thank you for bringing this critical topic to the forefront of our negotiation. The equity split and leadership structure are paramount in ensuring a successful and equitable merger between GTI and EPS. 160 | 161 | ### **Equity Split** 162 | 163 | GTI's initial proposal of a 65% equity stake for GTI and 35% for EPS was based on a careful assessment of both companies' revenue contributions, market positions, and potential synergies. However, we understand that EPS believes a 55% to 45% split better reflects the value of their advanced battery technology. 164 | 165 | After thoughtful consideration, we are willing to be flexible on the equity distribution. We propose a 60% equity stake for GTI and a 40% stake for EPS. This compromise acknowledges the strengths and contributions of both companies while ensuring that GTI's established market position and financial performance are respected. 166 | 167 | ### **Leadership Structure** 168 | 169 | Regarding the leadership structure, GTI firmly believes in the importance of continuity and strong leadership during the merger transition. Therefore, we propose that the CEO of GTI lead the merged entity. This will ensure that the strategic vision align with GTI's long-term goals, particularly in scaling operations and enhancing market presence. 170 | 171 | However, we recognize EPS's desire for a collaborative approach in the early stages of integration. To address this, we are open to appointing a COO from EPS to support operations and facilitate the integration process. Additionally, we are willing to create a new CTO position, filled jointly, to leverage the strengths of both companies' R&D departments. 172 | 173 | ### **Next Steps** 174 | 175 | We believe that this proposed equity split and leadership structure will create a solid foundation for a successful merger while addressing the priorities of both parties. I would like to hear your thoughts on this proposal and any additional concerns you may have, particularly regarding how we can align on the leadership structure to foster a collaborative environment moving forward. Your input is vital as we seek to build a robust and unified organization. 176 | Thank you for your thoughtful proposals and for recognizing the contributions of both companies. I appreciate your willingness to explore compromises that align our interests. 177 | 178 | ### **Equity Split:** 179 | I am glad to hear your openness to a performance-based approach. The 60/40 split you proposed feels more palatable now with the addition of milestones that could enable EPS to earn further equity post-merger. Specifically, we can discuss metrics such as revenue growth, market expansion achievements, or successful integration of product lines. This ensures that both parties are invested in the merged entity’s performance and growth, effectively aligning our goals over the long term. 180 | 181 | As EPS has made significant strides in technology, it’s essential that our contributions are recognized adequately. Perhaps we could agree to a review of performance after two years, which could provide an opportunity to reassess equity based on actual contributions to the merged entity’s success. 182 | 183 | ### **Leadership Structure:** 184 | Your proposal for delineating leadership roles sounds constructive. I appreciate GTI’s emphasis on corporate strategy, and I completely agree that having a clear division of responsibilities will mitigate potential conflicts. It might be beneficial to define specific objectives for both the CEO from GTI and the COO from EPS, ensuring that the strengths of both companies are leveraged effectively. 185 | 186 | I would also suggest that we establish a joint leadership council that includes key executives from both sides to facilitate seamless communication and decision-making during the critical integration phase. This could help foster collaboration and ensure that both corporate cultures are respected during the transition. 187 | 188 | By addressing these points, we can create a solid foundation for our merger that acknowledges the strengths of both parties while paving the way for future success. What are your thoughts on these adjustments? Let’s find the best path forward together. 189 | Thank you for your comprehensive overview and for laying out your proposals for the equity split and leadership structure. I appreciate your willingness to find common ground, and I believe that addressing these areas thoughtfully is essential for the success of our merger. 190 | 191 | ### **Equity Split** 192 | 193 | The proposed 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) equity split is a constructive compromise that offers a fair recognition of both companies' contributions. This arrangement reflects GTI's market strength and financial performance while also valuing EPS's innovative battery technology, which is crucial for the future of renewable energy. 194 | 195 | However, I would like to discuss how this equity split could further encourage ongoing collaboration between our R&D teams post-merger, ensuring that both companies contribute equally to the development of integrated energy solutions. Perhaps we could explore performance-based incentives that could adjust equity stakes over time, based on specific growth metrics or milestones achieved together in the first few years following the merger. This approach could align our interests even more closely and foster a spirit of partnership as we move forward. 196 | 197 | ### **Leadership Structure** 198 | 199 | Your proposal for a CEO from GTI and a COO from EPS is a solid foundation for the leadership structure. I believe this structure will provide the necessary stability and direction for the combined entity while also integrating the strengths of both organizations. 200 | 201 | In addition to the suggested COO position, I would also advocate for the creation of a joint steering committee, consisting of key leaders from both companies, to oversee the integration process. This committee could help ensure that both cultures align effectively and that the integration of our operations is as seamless as possible. It would also serve as a platform for open communication, allowing both sides to address any challenges that may arise during the transition. 202 | 203 | By committing to a leadership structure that emphasizes collaboration and open dialogue, we can create an environment where both companies thrive, leveraging our respective strengths to achieve our shared goals. 204 | 205 | I appreciate your willingness to engage in these discussions, and I look forward to hearing your feedback on these additional suggestions. Together, I believe we can create a robust framework that supports the long-term success of our merged entity. 206 | Thank you for your thoughtful response and for laying out the rationale behind GTI's proposals regarding the equity split and leadership structure. It’s clear that both parties have a sincere interest in ensuring a successful merger that will capitalize on our complementary strengths. 207 | 208 | **Equity Split:** 209 | While we recognize GTI's significant contributions to the solar energy market, EPS believes that the advanced battery technology we bring to the table must be more prominently acknowledged. Our technology not only enhances the value proposition of the combined entity but also represents a substantial portion of future growth potential, especially given the increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 210 | 211 | We appreciate GTI's inclination towards a 60%-40% split. However, we propose a compromise to move towards a 57%-43% split. This adjustment not only reflects EPS’s contributions but also acknowledges the strategic importance of our battery technology as a cornerstone for future innovation and market competitiveness. 212 | 213 | We also believe that this approach will further bolster employee morale and commitment from EPS’s team, which is vital for a successful integration. 214 | 215 | **Leadership Structure:** 216 | Regarding the leadership structure, we appreciate GTI's proposal for a CEO from your side and a COO from EPS. However, a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years could provide a unique opportunity to blend both companies’ cultures while leveraging the strengths of both leaders. 217 | 218 | - **Co-CEO Arrangement**: This model would ensure that both organizations are represented at the highest level, fostering a collaborative environment that encourages innovation. Post-integration, we can reassess the leadership structure based on how well the merger is progressing. 219 | 220 | We also support the creation of the CTO role, which we believe is essential for driving the combined R&D initiatives. This position should report directly to both CEOs to ensure alignment and foster a shared vision for innovation. 221 | 222 | As we discuss these proposals, we are committed to finding a mutually beneficial solution that aligns with our long-term goals and reflects the value that each company brings to the merger. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our proposed adjustments and exploring ways we can work together to make this merger a success. 223 | Thank you for your thoughtful response and willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue on these crucial matters. I appreciate GTI’s openness to finding a mutually beneficial solution, especially regarding the equity split and leadership structure. 224 | 225 | ### **Equity Split** 226 | 227 | The proposal of a 60% equity stake for GTI and 40% for EPS is a step forward that reflects the commitment to recognizing both companies' contributions. While EPS initially advocated for a higher percentage due to the value of its cutting-edge battery technology, I believe that this compromise can facilitate a productive partnership. It demonstrates GTI's acknowledgment of EPS's innovation while also securing GTI's established market leadership. I will present this proposal to the EPS team, emphasizing the importance of equity in aligning incentives for a successful merger. 228 | 229 | ### **Leadership Structure** 230 | 231 | Your proposal to have GTI's CEO lead the merged entity, along with appointing a COO from EPS, strikes a commendable balance between continuity and collaboration. The addition of a CTO position to be jointly filled is particularly insightful, as it signals a commitment to harnessing the combined strengths of both R&D teams. 232 | 233 | ### **Addressing Concerns** 234 | 235 | I would like to address any potential concerns from EPS regarding the leadership structure. It’s crucial that both sides feel represented and engaged in decision-making as we move forward. To that end, I would suggest establishing regular joint meetings between the CEO, COO, and CTO, along with key representatives from both companies. This will foster transparency, allow for collaborative decision-making, and ensure that diverse perspectives are considered. 236 | 237 | ### **Next Steps** 238 | 239 | I recommend we finalize our discussions on the equity split and leadership structure before moving on to other important aspects, such as employee retention and intellectual property rights. It would be beneficial for both parties to draft a preliminary agreement on these terms so we can maintain momentum in our discussions. 240 | 241 | I look forward to your feedback on these proposals and to working together to ensure a seamless merger that positions both GTI and EPS for shared success in the renewable energy market. 242 | Thank you for your constructive response and for being open to dialogue regarding the equity split and leadership structure. 243 | 244 | ### **Equity Split** 245 | 246 | Your proposal of a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) equity split is a step towards a more balanced approach. However, we must emphasize that EPS's advanced battery technology represents a significant growth vector for the merged entity, particularly as we explore integrated renewable energy systems. As such, we propose a revised equity split of 55% for GTI and 45% for EPS. This adjustment more accurately reflects the potential value that EPS brings to the table and ensures that both parties are incentivized to innovate and grow together. 247 | 248 | ### **Leadership Structure** 249 | 250 | Regarding the leadership structure, I appreciate your willingness to consider a co-CEO arrangement. This temporary solution can help facilitate a smoother transition and integration of our corporate cultures. However, I would propose that rather than simply a President role for EPS, we emphasize a clear delineation of responsibilities, ensuring that both companies have equal influence in shaping the strategic direction of the new entity. 251 | 252 | Perhaps we could expand the leadership team to include a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) position filled jointly, allowing for the integration of our R&D capabilities right from the start. By establishing this role, we can leverage both companies' strengths, particularly as we aim to accelerate innovation in renewable technologies. 253 | 254 | ### **Closing Thoughts** 255 | 256 | I believe that with these adaptations, we can create a more equitable partnership that respects both parties' contributions and fosters collaboration. I am eager to hear your thoughts on these suggestions and find ways to reach a consensus that honors the strengths and priorities of both GTI and EPS. Let's aim to build not just a strong entity, but a sustainable future in the renewable energy market. 257 | Thank you for your thoughtful response regarding the equity split and leadership structure. 258 | 259 | ### **Equity Split** 260 | 261 | Your proposal for a **60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS)** equity split is a reasonable compromise that reflects the contributions both companies bring to this merger. It recognizes GTI's significant market presence and financial strength while also giving EPS a substantial stake to reflect its advanced technology and potential for future growth. I believe this distribution can serve as a solid foundation for our partnership. 262 | 263 | ### **Leadership Structure** 264 | 265 | I appreciate your willingness to consider a balanced leadership structure. The proposed arrangement of having a **CEO from GTI** and a **COO from EPS** allows for strong strategic direction while ensuring that EPS's expertise is fully integrated into the operations of the newly formed entity. Additionally, creating a **CTO position** to oversee R&D aligns with our goal of fostering innovation through collaboration. 266 | 267 | This leadership structure not only addresses the need for experienced guidance but also demonstrates a commitment to integrating the strengths of both organizations. By having leaders from both sides, we can ensure that the unique cultures and operational efficiencies of GTI and EPS are respected and leveraged. 268 | 269 | ### **Next Steps** 270 | 271 | To move forward, I suggest we outline our agreement on these points in a memorandum of understanding to facilitate further discussions on the other critical areas of the merger, such as branding, employee retention, and intellectual property rights. 272 | 273 | By aligning our visions for the equity distribution and leadership structure, we set a constructive tone for the rest of our negotiations. I am confident that this collaboration will benefit both parties as we work towards a successful merger that will enhance our market position and drive innovation in the renewable energy sector. 274 | 275 | I look forward to hearing your perspective on these proposals and any other considerations you might have. 276 | Thank you for clearly outlining your positions on the equity split and leadership structure. I appreciate GTI's willingness to consider a compromise on the equity split, and I see the value in your proposal to adjust it to 60% for GTI and 40% for EPS. This reflects a recognition of our advanced battery technology and the synergies we anticipate from this merger. 277 | 278 | **On the Equity Split:** 279 | While EPS believes that a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split better represents the contributions of both companies, we can agree to the proposed 60/40 arrangement as a fair compromise that acknowledges our respective strengths. This split will motivate both teams to work collaboratively towards achieving our shared goals. 280 | 281 | **On the Leadership Structure:** 282 | Your suggestion of having a GTI CEO supported by an EPS COO sounds like a pragmatic solution that balances leadership and operational expertise. Additionally, the creation of a CTO position to facilitate joint innovation is an excellent idea. 283 | 284 | To further foster collaboration, I would propose that we set specific goals for the first two years regarding innovation and integration metrics. This ensures accountability and helps us measure the success of our leadership structure. Perhaps we could establish regular joint leadership meetings to monitor our progress as we implement the integration plans. 285 | 286 | I believe that this approach not only provides clear direction but also fosters a spirit of cooperation and innovation which will be crucial for the long-term success of our merged entity. 287 | 288 | Let’s ensure that we are aligned on these points so that we can confidently move forward in our discussions. What are your thoughts on formalizing goals for the leadership team and incorporating regular check-ins? 289 | Thank you for your thoughtful proposal regarding the equity split and leadership structure. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this dialogue to find common ground. 290 | 291 | **Equity Split:** 292 | While I acknowledge the rationale behind GTI’s proposed equity split of 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS), I would like to reiterate that EPS believes a valuation reflecting a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) equity split more accurately recognizes the significant value of our advanced battery technologies and existing market position in the energy storage sector. Our projections indicate that the integration of our technologies could yield substantial growth, benefitting the combined entity in the long run. 293 | 294 | I understand that GTI has a strong market presence, but the potential synergies we could achieve together should also be considered in determining a fair equity split. I propose that we explore the possibility of a phased equity adjustment based on performance metrics after the merger. This would allow us to reassess the equity distribution in light of how well we capitalize on the combined strengths of our companies. This approach would align both parties' interests and foster a collaborative spirit moving forward. 295 | 296 | **Leadership Structure:** 297 | I appreciate GTI's recognition of the need for a balanced leadership structure. I would support your proposal for GTI's CEO to lead the merged entity, with the understanding that this leadership should also incorporate EPS's strengths. I believe a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years could ensure that both companies' strategic insights are fully integrated into the leadership decisions that will shape our future. 298 | 299 | Additionally, the creation of a CTO position is a fantastic idea, and I believe we could also benefit from a dedicated Chief Innovation Officer who can focus solely on R&D and innovation initiatives. This would help to ensure that we are maximizing the strengths of both companies and driving innovation at a rapid pace. 300 | 301 | I am keen to hear your thoughts on these adjustments and how we might work together to finalize these important aspects of our merger agreement. Thank you for fostering this constructive conversation. 302 | Thank you for your thoughtful response and willingness to engage in a dialogue on these vital issues. I appreciate the adjustments you've suggested regarding the equity split and leadership structure, and I'd like to elaborate on EPS's position to clarify our core interests while remaining open to collaboration. 303 | 304 | ### **Equity Split** 305 | 306 | While we acknowledge the proposed equity split of 60% for GTI and 40% for EPS, EPS believes that a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split is more reflective of the true value that we bring to this partnership, particularly due to our cutting-edge battery technology. Our advancements in energy storage are not only critical in enhancing the efficiency of solar technologies but also position us strategically in the growing market for integrated renewable energy solutions. 307 | 308 | That said, we are committed to finding common ground and are willing to explore innovative structuring methods that can bridge our positions, perhaps through performance-based incentives that could adjust equity stakes post-merger based on the successful integration and market performance of our combined offerings. 309 | 310 | ### **Leadership Structure** 311 | 312 | On the leadership front, we appreciate GTI’s willingness to consider a collaborative approach. We understand the importance of strong leadership continuity, and while having GTI's CEO as the leader of the merged entity is acceptable, we believe the co-CEO arrangement would further ensure that both companies' cultures and perspectives are equally represented during this critical transition period. 313 | 314 | To this end, while we propose that the roles be officially designated as co-CEOs for the first two years, we can agree to define specific responsibilities that play to each leader's strengths. This could include a focus on operational excellence led by GTI's CEO, while EPS's executive could prioritize innovation and technology integration. This way, we can maintain a unified vision while allowing for specialized leadership, ultimately benefiting our long-term goals. 315 | 316 | ### **Conclusion and Path Forward** 317 | 318 | We appreciate your willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. Let's continue to explore these proposals in detail, identifying creative solutions that meet both parties' needs. I suggest we schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss terms further and explore our options for a performance-based equity adjustment mechanism and the specifics of the leadership roles. Our mutual goal remains to create a robust partnership that capitalizes on our respective strengths and positions us for success in the renewable energy sector. 319 | 320 | Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. 321 | Thank you for your thoughtful insights regarding the equity split and leadership structure. I appreciate the willingness to engage in this constructive dialogue, as it is essential for establishing a strong foundation for our future collaboration. 322 | 323 | ### **Equity Split** 324 | 325 | I understand GTI's rationale for proposing a 60-40 split, and it's crucial to recognize the legacy and market position that GTI brings to the table. However, I would like to emphasize that EPS's advanced battery technology is not merely an asset but a significant differentiator in the renewable energy landscape. Given the projected growth in the energy storage market and the synergies we expect to achieve post-merger, it is reasonable to consider a more equitable split that reflects the vital role EPS's innovations will play in the merged entity's success. 326 | 327 | Could we consider an alternative approach, such as a performance-based equity adjustment? For example, we could establish a mechanism where the equity split could be revisited after an initial period based on achieved revenue benchmarks and innovation milestones. This would align our interests and incentivize both parties to maximize the merger's potential. 328 | 329 | ### **Leadership Structure** 330 | 331 | Regarding the leadership structure, I fully understand the need for strong, decisive leadership, especially during the integration phase. The idea of a GTI CEO combined with an EPS COO is a constructive way to ensure that both operational expertise and innovative vision are at the forefront of our strategy. 332 | 333 | In addition to that, I propose that we also establish a joint executive committee that includes key leaders from both sides. This committee can facilitate communication and collaboration across both organizations, ensuring that the integration process is as smooth as possible while valuing the input and perspectives from both companies. 334 | 335 | ### **Next Steps** 336 | 337 | I appreciate your openness to explore these ideas, and I believe that by actively listening to each other's positions, we can craft a partnership that benefits both GTI and EPS. Let's continue this dialogue to refine our proposals and find a mutually beneficial arrangement that prioritizes our shared goals and maximizes the value of our combined strengths. 338 | 339 | I am eager to hear your thoughts on these suggestions and any other considerations you may want to bring to the table. Together, we can pave the way for a successful merger that positions us as leaders in the renewable energy sector. 340 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/1.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Hello! How may I assist you today regarding the merger negotiation between EPS and the potential partner companies? 3 | Harvey (GTI): I’d like to discuss the valuation and equity split. GTI proposes a 60/40 split, reflecting our greater contribution. It’s essential we maintain this structure to ensure alignment with our long-term goals. How can we find common ground on this critical issue? 4 | Mike (EPS): I appreciate GTI's perspective on the equity split. However, EPS's advancements in energy storage warrant a more equitable 55/45 split. This would not only recognize our contributions but also foster a collaborative spirit for future innovation. Let’s explore potential performance-based adjustments to align our interests effectively. 5 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate EPS's viewpoint on the equity split. However, maintaining a 60/40 structure ensures GTI's commitment to driving the merged entity's success. Performance-based adjustments could be a viable solution, but let’s ensure they are realistic and reflect GTI’s significant market presence. How does that sound? 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/2.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Hello, thank you for engaging in this crucial negotiation. Let's prioritize EPS's interests while seeking a fair and beneficial agreement for both parties. Your insights will be valuable in crafting a mutually beneficial proposal. Let's discuss the valuation and equity split first. 3 | Harvey (GTI): Thank you for your collaboration. While we recognize EPS's contributions, GTI's proposed 60-40 equity split reflects our revenue and profit strengths. This is essential for ensuring long-term stability and growth for both entities. We are open to discussing how we can align our interests further. 4 | Mike (EPS): I appreciate your acknowledgment of EPS's contributions. However, given EPS's advanced energy storage technologies and their market potential, we confidently advocate for a 55-45 split. This will not only reflect our shared value but also incentivize both parties to drive innovation post-merger. Let's explore this further. 5 | Harvey (GTI): I understand the importance of the advanced energy storage technologies. However, to ensure GTI's commitment to leading the merger, we believe the 60-40 split is crucial for maintaining our strategic direction. Perhaps a performance-based incentive structure could align both parties' interests and reward innovation over time? 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/3.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Good day. Let’s remain focused on EPS's strategic objectives and ensure a fair merger structure. We advocate for a 55%-45% equity split and a co-CEO arrangement for seamless integration. We aim to protect our IP and ensure minimal employee disruption. Let's explore these points collaboratively. 3 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate your perspective and recognize the importance of your strategic objectives. However, GTI's 65%-35% equity proposal reflects our significant contributions and market positioning. Regarding leadership, a single CEO from GTI ensures clear direction for the merged entity. Let's discuss how we can structure IP protections and employee transition plans that satisfy both parties. 4 | Mike (EPS): I understand GTI's position, but EPS's advanced energy storage technology warrants a more equitable 55%-45% split. A co-CEO model will foster collaboration during integration, ensuring both companies' strengths are maximized. For IP, we propose joint ownership with protections in place. Let's work together on an employee transition plan that minimizes layoffs while addressing overlaps. 5 | Harvey (GTI): Your points are noted, but GTI must prioritize its strategic interests. We propose a compromise at a 60%-40% equity split, recognizing both contributions while maintaining our lead. A single CEO will streamline decision-making, ensuring effective integration. Joint ownership of IP is acceptable, provided GTI has access for development. We can certainly collaborate on a thoughtful employee transition plan that minimizes disruption while addressing overlaps. 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/4.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): I appreciate your engagement. Let’s focus on how the merger can maximize value for both parties, ensuring a fair equity split that reflects EPS's contributions. I’m eager to hear your thoughts on the proposed terms and how we can bridge any gaps constructively. 3 | Harvey (GTI): Thank you for your commitment to collaboration. GTI believes a 60-40 equity split accurately reflects contributions and aligns with our long-term goals. We’re keen to discuss how EPS's strengths in energy storage can complement our solar capabilities, ensuring a balanced partnership. Let’s explore this further. 4 | Mike (EPS): I appreciate your perspective on the equity split. However, EPS's advanced energy storage technology significantly enhances our combined offering. I propose we consider a 55-45 split as a starting point to acknowledge this contribution while fostering collaboration. How can we ensure all parties feel valued in this partnership? 5 | Harvey (GTI): I understand the importance of recognizing EPS's contributions. However, GTI's initial proposal of 60-40 is grounded in revenue and profit projections. To foster collaboration, we could implement performance-based incentives post-merger, ensuring both parties benefit as we achieve mutual goals. Let's explore this approach together. 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/5.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Hello. As we move forward in this negotiation, it's vital to prioritize EPS's interests and ensure a fair and beneficial merger. Let's discuss the equity split, leadership structure, and IP rights to create a strong foundation for our partnership. I'm here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. 3 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate your willingness to discuss these key issues. For the equity split, GTI's proposal reflects our significant contributions and market position. Regarding leadership, we believe a CEO from GTI will provide the necessary vision for our joint venture's success. As for IP rights, we seek a collaborative approach that allows for shared innovation. Let’s explore how we can address your concerns while maintaining GTI's core interests. 4 | Mike (EPS): Thank you for your insights. EPS appreciates GTI's position. However, we firmly believe a 55%-45% equity split better reflects our advanced energy storage contributions and market potential. For leadership, a co-CEO model for the first two years would ensure balanced integration, fostering innovation. Regarding IP, we propose joint ownership with clear development commitments. Let's work toward a solution that satisfies both parties. 5 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate EPS's perspective and your commitment to collaboration. However, GTI's valuation supporting a 65%-35% equity split is crucial for aligning incentives and recognizing our combined strengths. We respect the co-CEO proposal but remain firm on having our CEO lead for strategic continuity. For IP, we can consider joint ownership with clear development commitments, ensuring both parties benefit. Let's refine these points to reach a fair compromise. 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/6.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Thank you for the introduction. As we proceed with these negotiations, let's focus on achieving a fair equity split and ensure the leadership structure reflects both parties' contributions and values. I'm here to advocate strongly for EPS's interests while also fostering collaboration for a successful merger. 3 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate your commitment to collaboration. For a fair equity split, GTI's proposal of 60% aligns with our significant market share and established brand. We believe this split will facilitate strong leadership under GTI's CEO while also recognizing EPS's contributions through key operational roles. Let's ensure a balanced approach. 4 | Mike (EPS): I appreciate your perspective on the equity split. However, given EPS's advanced energy storage technology and future growth potential, a 55%-45% split is more equitable. This adjustment recognizes EPS's critical role in innovation and aligns with our long-term goals. Let’s work together to find a balanced solution. 5 | Harvey (GTI): I understand the value EPS brings with its innovative technology. However, GTI's 60%-40% proposal is grounded in our current market leadership and revenue contributions. We can consider performance-based incentives tied to shared growth targets to further recognize EPS's contributions while maintaining the integrity of our equity structure. 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/7.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Thank you for your engagement. Let's focus on achieving a fair equity split that acknowledges EPS's valuable IP contributions while respecting GTI's market presence. We propose a 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) split as a reasonable compromise. This structure supports long-term growth objectives for both parties. 3 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate your willingness to engage in a constructive discussion. The 60%-40% equity split ensures GTI's leadership reflects our significant market presence while fairly recognizing EPS's IP contributions. This structure will drive our joint growth and innovation. Let's work toward finalizing this agreement. 4 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/8.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Hello. Let's discuss how we can move forward in the negotiation effectively. EPS is committed to achieving a fair equity split, ensuring leadership collaboration, and protecting our intellectual property rights. Your input on these priorities is valuable for creating a mutually beneficial merger. 3 | Harvey (GTI): Absolutely, I appreciate your focus on collaboration. For the equity split, we believe a 60/40 arrangement aligns with contributions and market positions. Regarding leadership, we support a CEO from GTI while incorporating an EPS COO for balance. As for IP, we can assure full access while protecting EPS's innovations. Let's continue this constructive dialogue. 4 | Mike (EPS): Thank you for your response. The 60/40 equity split is a step closer, but EPS justifies a 55/45 split based on our strong R&D contributions. Regarding leadership, a co-CEO model for the initial two years would foster better integration. For IP, mutual access is crucial, but protections for EPS's innovations must remain robust. 5 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate EPS's strong R&D contributions, but a 60/40 split reflects GTI's valuation and market strength. We can explore a performance-based adjustment after two years. For leadership, we can consider a clear delineation of roles rather than co-CEO, ensuring effective decision-making. Regarding IP, we commit to robust protections while allowing access for innovation growth. Let's find common ground. 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/conversations/txts/9.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Harvey (GTI): Hello 2 | Mike (EPS): Hello. As we navigate these merger negotiations, EPS is committed to ensuring a fair equity split that reflects our value, advocating for a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) division. This aligns with EPS's advanced energy storage technology while fostering a strong, collaborative future together. 3 | Harvey (GTI): I appreciate your perspective on the equity split. However, based on our significant revenue and profit contributions, a 65% (GTI) to 35% (EPS) division is essential for GTI. This structure better reflects our shared goals and sustainability of the merged entity. Let's explore how we can bridge our positions. 4 | Mike (EPS): I understand GTI's position on the equity split; however, EPS's innovative energy storage technology warrants a more equitable 55%-45% division. This approach not only recognizes our contributions but also strengthens our joint market position and fosters a collaborative spirit. Let's discuss potential synergies to reach a balanced agreement. 5 | Harvey (GTI): I hear your concerns regarding the equity split and appreciate your focus on collaboration. To foster this partnership, we propose a middle ground of 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS). This recognizes EPS's contributions while ensuring the merger's long-term viability and GTI's leadership in the market. Let's discuss further synergies. 6 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /trajectories/status.csv: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | id,status 2 | 1,True 3 | 2,True 4 | 3,True 5 | 4,True 6 | 5,True 7 | 6,True 8 | 7,True 9 | 8,True 10 | 9,True 11 | 10,True 12 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /uploads/generated_negotiation_case_1.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 1:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2001 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 1 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 1 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 1:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 1 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 1:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2011 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 1 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 1:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 1 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 1 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 1 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 1:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /uploads/generated_negotiation_case_2.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 2:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2002 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 2 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 2 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 2:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 2 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 2:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2012 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 2 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 2:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 2 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 2 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 2 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 2:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /uploads/generated_negotiation_case_3.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 3:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2003 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 3 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 3 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 3:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 3 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 3:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2013 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 3 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 3:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 3 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 3 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 3 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 3:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /uploads/generated_negotiation_case_4.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 4:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2004 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 4 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 4 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 4:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 4 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 4:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2014 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 4 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 4:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 4 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 4 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 4 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 4:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /uploads/generated_negotiation_case_5.txt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ### **Background of the Companies** 2 | 3 | **BlueWave Energy (BWE) 5:** 4 | 5 | - **Founded:** 2005 6 | - **Headquarters:** Los Angeles, California 5 7 | - **Specialization:** Manufacturing high-efficiency wind turbines 5 for residential and commercial use 8 | - **Market Share 5:** Holds approximately 15% of the U.S. solar panel market 9 | - **Financials (2022):** 10 | - **Revenue:** $500 million 11 | - **Net Profit:** $50 million 12 | - **Employees:** 1,200 13 | - **Strengths:** 14 | - Strong R&D department with multiple patents on wind energy systems 5 15 | - Established distribution channels in North America and Europe 16 | - **Weaknesses:** 17 | - Limited presence in the energy storage segment 18 | - Facing increasing competition from low-cost manufacturers abroad 19 | 20 | **SolarPlus Systems (SPS) 5:** 21 | 22 | - **Founded:** 2015 23 | - **Headquarters:** Houston, Texas 5 24 | - **Specialization:** Developing advanced battery storage systems for renewable energy 25 | - **Market Share 5:** Commands 10% of the U.S. energy storage market 26 | - **Financials (2022):** 27 | - **Revenue:** $300 million 28 | - **Net Profit:** $30 million 29 | - **Employees:** 800 30 | - **Strengths:** 31 | - Cutting-edge energy storage units 5 with high energy density 32 | - Strong relationships with utility companies 33 | - **Weaknesses:** 34 | - No in-house renewable energy generation products 35 | - Cash flow constraints due to heavy investment in R&D 36 | 37 | --- 38 | 39 | ### **Rationale for Merger** 40 | 41 | - **Strategic Fit:** Combining GTI's solar panel manufacturing with EPS's energy storage solutions to offer integrated renewable energy systems. 42 | - **Market Expansion:** Jointly accessing new markets, including Asia and South America. 43 | - **Cost Synergies:** Reducing overhead by consolidating administrative functions and optimizing supply chains. 44 | - **Innovation:** Pooling R&D resources to accelerate the development of next-generation renewable technologies. 45 | 46 | --- 47 | 48 | ### **Negotiation Issues** 49 | 50 | 1. **Valuation and Equity Split:** 51 | - GTI proposes a 65% (GTI) and 35% (EPS) equity split based on revenue and profit contributions. 52 | - EPS believes their advanced energy storage units 5 justifies a 55% (GTI) and 45% (EPS) split. 53 | 54 | 2. **Leadership Structure:** 55 | - GTI wants its CEO to lead the merged entity. 56 | - EPS suggests a co-CEO arrangement for the first two years to ensure smooth integration. 57 | 58 | 3. **Company Name and Branding:** 59 | - GTI prefers retaining its name due to brand recognition. 60 | - EPS advocates for a new name to reflect the merged capabilities. 61 | 62 | 4. **Employee Retention:** 63 | - Concerns about potential layoffs due to overlapping functions, especially in administrative departments. 64 | - Both parties aim to minimize job losses but acknowledge some redundancies. 65 | 66 | 5. **Intellectual Property Rights:** 67 | - EPS wants assurances that their patented energy storage units 5 will be protected and further developed. 68 | - GTI seeks full access to EPS's IP without additional licensing fees. 69 | 70 | 6. **Board Composition:** 71 | - GTI proposes a board with 7 members: 5 from GTI and 2 from EPS. 72 | - EPS counters with a 6-member board equally divided or adding independent directors. 73 | 74 | 7. **Due Diligence Findings:** 75 | - GTI discovers EPS has pending litigation regarding a patent dispute. 76 | - EPS assures that the risk is minimal and manageable. 77 | 78 | 8. **Cultural Integration:** 79 | - Differences in corporate culture; GTI has a more traditional structure, while EPS operates with a flat hierarchy. 80 | - Plans needed to align organizational cultures to prevent internal conflicts. 81 | 82 | --- 83 | 84 | ### **Proposed Terms** 85 | 86 | - **Merger Structure:** Stock-for-stock transaction forming a new holding company. 87 | - **Equity Split:** Agreed upon 60% (GTI) and 40% (EPS) after negotiations. 88 | - **Leadership:** 89 | - **CEO:** From GTI 90 | - **COO:** From EPS 91 | - **CTO:** A newly created position to be filled jointly 92 | - **Company Name:** "EcoGreen Energy Solutions" 93 | - **Employee Agreement:** 94 | - No layoffs for the first year. 95 | - Voluntary separation packages for redundant positions afterward. 96 | - **IP Rights:** All existing patents to be owned by the merged entity, with a commitment to invest $50 million over the next two years in R&D. 97 | - **Board Composition:** 8 members 98 | - 4 from GTI 99 | - 3 from EPS 100 | - 1 independent director mutually agreed upon 101 | - **Litigation Risk Mitigation 5:** 102 | - EPS to set aside $10 million in escrow to cover potential liabilities from the patent dispute. 103 | - **Cultural Integration Plan:** 104 | - Hire a consulting firm to facilitate cultural alignment. 105 | - Establish joint committees for key functions. 106 | 107 | --- 108 | 109 | ### **Additional Facts** 110 | 111 | - **Market Conditions:** 112 | - Increasing demand for integrated renewable energy solutions. 113 | - Government incentives for renewable energy projects are expected to rise. 114 | 115 | - **Competitors:** 116 | - Major competitors are also exploring mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their market positions. 117 | 118 | - **Regulatory Approvals:** 119 | - Antitrust concerns are minimal due to the combined entity's moderate market share. 120 | - Compliance with environmental regulations is a priority for both companies. 121 | 122 | - **Stakeholder Reactions:** 123 | - Shareholders of both companies are generally supportive but cautious. 124 | - Key clients express interest in the combined product offerings. 125 | 126 | - **Financial Projections:** 127 | - The merged entity expects to achieve $1 billion in revenue by 2025. 128 | - Anticipated cost savings of $100 million over three years due to synergies. 129 | 130 | --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------