Does the partnership still work after the evidence changes?
Recalculate joint value before trying another revenue share.
The question
Before signing or incurring launch costs, a better counterfactual reduces RelayCart's expected incremental accounts from 80 to 50. Partner-tagged accounts remain 120. The proposed commission is 30%.
| 80 incremental accounts | 50 incremental accounts | |
|---|---|---|
| RelayCart gain vs baseline | 3600 | -25200 |
| RouteLink gain vs alternative | 3600 | 3600 |
| Combined gain | 7200 | -21600 |
Invented first-year assumptions, before either launch cost is incurred. Tagged accounts and the commission base remain unchanged at 120.
“Does the partnership still work after the evidence changes?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Update the right input
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Reduce both account counts to 50 automatically.
Tempting, but it misses something. The contract still pays on 120 expected tagged accounts.
Change only the incremental count and explain the distinction.
The strong move. The revised model matches the evidence and the term sheet.
Keep 80 because it was used in the first proposal.
Tempting, but it misses something. The decision should use the better counterfactual.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Reduce incremental accounts to 50 while keeping the contractual commission base at 120 tagged accounts.”
Why it works: The new evidence changes causal contribution, not the proposed payout definition.
Step 2: Recompute both alternatives
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Call the deal attractive because RouteLink still gains.
Tempting, but it misses something. A partnership must work for both parties.
Report each gain and their negative combined value.
The strong move. This reveals the joint shortfall rather than hiding it in a transfer.
Compare only gross partner-tagged revenue.
Tempting, but it misses something. Revenue ignores delivery, launch cost and the baseline.
See how a strong candidate says it
“At 30%, RelayCart loses $25,200 against its baseline and RouteLink gains $3,600 against its alternative.”
Why it works: The combined gain is now negative $21,600.
Step 3: Test whether a rate change can solve it
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Search for a rate between 12.5% and 27.5% and call it fair.
Tempting, but it misses something. There is no overlap between the participation constraints.
Increase the rate until the partner is satisfied.
Tempting, but it misses something. That deepens the platform's loss.
Explain that the current scope has no feasible share.
The strong move. The conclusion follows the joint economics.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The platform ceiling is 12.5%, below the partner floor of 27.5%. No rate satisfies both.”
Why it works: Changing the commission moves value between parties but cannot create it.
Step 4: Change the deal or pass
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Negotiate the same scope indefinitely.
Tempting, but it misses something. No transfer can repair the stated shortfall.
Test a lower-cost scope or pass if the evidence remains weak.
The strong move. A different value pool, not a cosmetic rate change, is needed.
Treat future launch costs as already sunk.
Tempting, but it misses something. They have not been incurred in this scenario.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Revisit incremental demand, avoidable cost or scope before making another offer.”
Why it works: This decision is before launch; the fixed costs remain avoidable.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Pause the current proposal and change its scope or cost, or pass.
- Because
- The revised demand assumption creates negative joint value before signing.
- What would change it
- Credible new demand or a lower-cost operating plan restores a positive participation interval.
Common traps
- Using commission to conceal a negative value pool.
- Applying a pre-launch calculation to a sunk-cost continuation decision.
Check your answer
- Which fact changed?
- Did the contractual payout base stay the same?
- Does any share satisfy both parties?
- What change could create value rather than redistribute it?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026