Our approach
Our Research-Backed Approach
to AI-Powered Mediation
Every design decision traces to published research.
FairMediate isn't a chatbot that gives advice. It's a structured mediation process — private advocates, a neutral mediator, and iterative proposals — built on decades of negotiation and relationship science.
The architecture
Three agents, three roles
Traditional mediation uses three distinct roles: two advocates (or the parties themselves) and one mediator. We replicate this structure with AI — not to replace human judgment, but to make the structure accessible to anyone, anytime, for free.
Your Advocate
Listens, clarifies, surfaces interests
Helps you articulate what you actually need — not just what you're angry about. Uses techniques from relationship psychology to move from positions to interests. Your partner never sees this conversation.
Their Advocate
Same process, independently
The other party gets the same private experience. Their advocate helps them surface their own underlying needs. Neither advocate communicates with the other.
The Mediator
Synthesizes, proposes, iterates
Sees themes and priorities from both sides — never exact words. Identifies common ground, names the real tension, and proposes specific, actionable agreements.
Why three agents, not one? A single AI trying to mediate both sides simultaneously creates the same problem as direct negotiation: each party performs for the other instead of communicating honestly. Separation is the mechanism that makes mediation work — both in research and in practice.
The research
Four frameworks that shaped the design
Each framework addresses a specific failure mode in how people typically try to resolve disagreements.
Interest-based negotiation
Fisher & Ury — Getting to Yes (1981)
The insight
Most disputes aren't about positions ('I want 60%') — they're about underlying interests ('I want my work to be recognized'). When a mediator reframes positions as interests, parties discover solutions neither would have proposed alone.
How we apply it
Each advocate is designed to surface underlying interests — not just record demands. The mediator's proposal addresses interests, not positions.
Source: Harvard Negotiation Project
Private caucusing
Pre-mediation caucus research
The insight
When each party speaks privately to the mediator before the joint session, they communicate more honestly, admit their own role in the conflict, and reveal their true needs. The presence of the other party activates defensiveness that blocks resolution.
How we apply it
The private advocate conversation IS the caucus. Each person speaks freely without the other listening, producing richer and more honest input for the mediator.
Emotional regulation through structure
Gottman Method & affective neuroscience
The insight
96% of conversations that begin with criticism fail entirely. Emotional flooding — when heart rate exceeds 100 BPM — shuts down the prefrontal cortex, making rational problem-solving physiologically impossible. Structure prevents flooding before it starts.
How we apply it
By separating each party into private conversations, the 'harsh startup' is eliminated. Text-based, asynchronous communication gives the prefrontal cortex time to stay engaged.
Source: Gottman Institute
Structured mediation outperforms direct negotiation
Bogacz, Pun & Klimecki (2020)
The insight
A randomized controlled study published in a Nature portfolio journal found that romantic couples in structured mediation were 1.39x more likely to reach agreement, reported higher satisfaction, and showed lower physiological stress than couples who negotiated directly.
How we apply it
The entire three-agent architecture — advocate, advocate, mediator — replicates the structure that produced these results, adapted for asynchronous text-based use.
Design decisions
Why text-based and asynchronous
Text over voice
Writing engages the prefrontal cortex more than speaking. It forces slower, more deliberate communication — exactly what emotionally charged conversations need. You can't 'yell' in a text box.
Asynchronous over real-time
Parties don't need to be online at the same time. This removes scheduling friction, eliminates time pressure, and gives each person space to think before responding.
Private before shared
Each person processes their own feelings and articulates their needs before any information crosses to the other side. This is the caucusing principle — honesty requires safety.
Proposals over verdicts
The mediator proposes — it doesn't decide. Both parties can accept, suggest changes, or reject. This preserves autonomy and produces agreements people actually follow.
Boundaries
What this tool does not do
Not therapy
Therapy explores root causes over many sessions. This resolves a specific disagreement in one structured process.
Not legal advice
Agreements are between the parties — not legally binding. For legal matters, consult a qualified professional.
Not a replacement for professionals
For domestic abuse, mental health crises, or high-stakes legal disputes, professional help is essential.
Not one-sided advice
Unlike asking ChatGPT for relationship advice, both parties participate equally. The structure prevents validation-seeking.
See the approach in action
Walk through a real mediation example, or see how it applies to couples, business partners, freelancers, or roommates.