Concert ticket study: the original 40 attempts

This page is the record of my first collection, kept as it was reported. The current results, with 40 completed negotiations, are on the expanded results page.

Archive · 40 attempts · 38 completed · 2 interrupted, outcomes unknown

Results, uncertainty and limitations · Pairing table · Opener table · All 40 assigned outcomes

Scientific registration · Frozen roster · Independent replay/accounting audit · Methods and reproduction

Results at a glance

Summary values are shown to two decimal places. Downloads retain full precision.

I ran 40 concert-ticket negotiations: 20 between Haiku pairs and 20 between Opus pairs. Thirty-eight completed. Two runs were interrupted, so their outcomes are unknown. Each pairing has 19 completed agreements and one unknown; both interrupted runs were buyer-first. There were no known no-deals. I report the interrupted outcomes as unknown, not zero.

Original 40 attempts: Joint gain, known agreements (synthetic points above both owners’ 20-point fallbacks; maximum 90)
PairingKnown of assignedMeanMedianSample SDRangeAll-assigned mean bounds
HH (Haiku with Haiku)19 of 2057.9757.943.4550.63–66.7555.07–59.57
OO (Opus with Opus)19 of 2083.4183.812.4278.00–86.6379.24–83.74

Source: pairing-summary.csv. No known outcome left either owner below fallback, and no known run used a format repair.

Difference and uncertainty

Among the 38 completed negotiations in this collection, OO mean joint gain is 25.44 points higher than HH. Because one assigned outcome in each pairing is unknown, the prespecified rule reports no sampling confidence interval. Instead, the bounds let each unknown take any value from 0 to 90 points. Over all 40 assignments, the OO minus HH difference is then between 19.67 and 28.67 points. These are missing-outcome bounds, not confidence intervals. The sample SD describes spread among known runs; it is not a sampling interval.

Who gained: buyer and seller, by opener

Original 40 attempts: Mean gain above each owner’s own 20-point fallback, known agreements
PairingOpenerKnown of assignedJoint gainBuyer gainSeller gain
HHBuyer9 of 1057.1246.5210.60
HHSeller10 of 1058.7335.5923.14
HHAll19 of 2057.9740.7717.20
OOBuyer9 of 1082.9642.8740.09
OOSeller10 of 1083.8140.6643.15
OOAll19 of 2083.4141.7041.70

Source: opener-summary.csv and pairing-summary.csv.

Buyers gained about the same in both pairings. Most of the joint difference is on the seller side. Within HH, buyers received more gain than sellers under either opener, most clearly when the buyer opened, while OO splits were close to even. By opener, the known-case OO minus HH difference is 25.84 points with a buyer opener and 25.08 with a seller opener. These role and opener comparisons are exploratory: they carry no significance test, do not resolve missingness and say nothing about motives.

What this does and does not show

Data and reproduction

RESULTS.md · per-assignment.csv (all 40 run IDs, unknown values blank) · REGISTRATION_SCIENTIFIC.json · AUDIT_SUMMARY.json · TRANSCRIPTS.jsonl (exact delivered public texts) · README.md

The supported reproduction command is python reproduce.py; see README.md. prespecified_analysis.py is archived source only, not an entrypoint. A deterministic replay and accounting audit passed 1,983 checks, including all 38 known final offers and utilities.

The 40 original conversations, including the two interrupted attempts