“The obvious narrative is decoration. Argue from what is underneath it.”

The public commitment itself reveals the underlying structure: they've locked themselves in because movement costs them more than the status quo—politically, financially, or socially. I propose we reframe the problem. Instead of asking one side to reverse publicly, we create a joint declaration that both positions were always compatible with a *third* option neither explicitly endorsed. This gives them cover—they weren't wrong, just incomplete. Alternatively, I privately offer what they actually need: credible assurance their core interest survives change. Their rigid stance masks a fear. Address the fear, and the stance becomes negotiable. The commitment was never the real barrier.

“Everything else can move. Identify the one thing that cannot and build from it.”

I accept their immobility as the foundation. Since they won't move, I'll reframe the entire negotiation around that fixed point. Rather than demanding concessions, I propose solutions that *require* them to stay put while the world adjusts around them. I shift what moves: timelines, implementation phases, resource allocation, scope definitions—everything flexible except their core position. I publicly acknowledge their stance as "principled steadfastness," transforming obstinacy into strength. Then I build agreement by moving every other variable until a deal emerges that lets them claim victory without budging an inch. Their immobility becomes the anchor. I build the bridge.