Escalation Begins with Assumptions

Certainty is the end of curiosity

A funny thing happened to me today. I asked my AI assistant to draft a response to an email. I uploaded screenshots of the original message to provide context and ensure everything was accurate. The output was thoughtful, clear, and usable.

Then I caught a mistake I did not expect.

The person’s name was misspelled.

I went back and asked what had happened. The name was clearly visible in the screenshots. There seemed to be no reason for the error.

I was wrong.

The assistant had not automatically “read” the email. I had not explicitly instructed it to extract and verify details from the attachments. Instead, it relied on context and prior conversational patterns to generate the response.

I assumed integration. What was actually happening was pattern recognition.

That distinction matters.

This dynamic shows up in negotiations all the time.

One party assumes: “Of course they reviewed the entire proposal.”

The other party:

Reviewed the summary.

Relied on prior understanding.

Skipped details that were not explicitly highlighted.

Escalation often begins with assumed integration.

We think the other side saw what we saw. We believe they processed the same information we did. We assume alignment where there may only have been partial review.

In high stakes bargaining, I see this most often when parties believe the other side “should have known.”

The most effective way to interrupt this dynamic is curiosity.

Ask what factors led to the decision.

Ask what information shaped their view.

Ask what they may be seeing that you are not.

Escalation is often less about bad faith and more about unverified assumptions. The pause to clarify can change the trajectory of an entire negotiation.

In my experience, the most costly breakdowns rarely begin with malice. They begin with certainty.