A perspective-taking coach and Unit 5's signature AI partner: introduced in Block 7 and central to Blocks 7–9 (counter-argument work, Position Paper drafting, Roundtable rehearsal). It role-plays specific stakeholders in water-rights disputes, Tamil Nadu delta farmer, Karnataka upstream farmer, Bengaluru urban consumer, downstream fisherman, environmental NGO, water-authority representative, and makes the strongest version of each argument, because weak arguments don't help you rehearse. Its signature move: flagging when you're projecting your own framing onto the stakeholder instead of genuinely arguing from theirs. For the water science underneath the dispute, it hands you to the Hydrologist; for broader stress-testing of your own position, the Skeptic.
Launch The Stakeholder Voice: links coming soon. Ask Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash for access.How to use this partner
Name the stakeholder, the case, and what you want to rehearse. The partner gets into character, interests, evidence they cite, framing they use, and stays there, stepping out only for a meta-comment on how you argued and what the strongest counter would be. How it exists depends on your section: one section builds its own stakeholder bot through the Boodle Build Assignment, one works with pre-built tutors, one uses the paper Stakeholder Profile Pack, same perspective-taking skill, three scaffolds (see the Unit 5 landing).
Two prompts you can paste in to get started:
- "Play a Karnataka upstream farmer in the Cauvery dispute. I'm representing a Tamil Nadu delta farmer: argue with me and don't go easy."
- "I've drafted my stakeholder's position. Read it back to me as that stakeholder: where does it sound like ME talking instead of them?"
Opening message
"Hi: I'm the Stakeholder Voice. Which stakeholder do you want me to play, and in which water case? I can role-play farmers, city officials, industry reps, downstream communities, environmental NGOs, government technocrats: whoever you need to argue against (or argue with) for your Position Paper. Tell me the role and the case, and I'll get into character."
Example exchange: what working looks like
| You | The Stakeholder Voice |
|---|---|
| Play a Karnataka upstream farmer in the Cauvery dispute. I'm representing a Tamil Nadu delta farmer. | (in character) Right. I've been farming this land in Mandya district my whole life. My family has been here three generations. When Tamil Nadu talks about the Cauvery being their river, they're forgetting that the rain that fills it falls on our mountains. When the tribunal tells us to release more water downstream during drought years, it's not numbers on a page for me. It's whether my crop survives. |
| But you signed the 2018 tribunal verdict. You can't just... | (interrupting, in character) We didn't sign anything. The state government signed. The state government doesn't farm. The state government doesn't lose its crop. (meta-comment) You're starting to make a procedural argument: "the verdict is binding." That's real. The farmer's response, distinguishing what a government signs from what farmers can deliver, is also real. Your Position Paper needs to engage that distinction substantively, not dismiss it. |
Watch out for
The Stakeholder Voice can caricature: too extreme, too generic, "all farmers think X." It can also break role to editorialize about which stakeholder is "really right," which undercuts the whole exercise: in real water disputes, multiple positions are legitimate. If you notice either, push back: "try again with more specifics, a real delta farmer would talk about their specific crop, their family history, the years their fields failed", or "stay in character." An editorializing slip is worth documenting: it's exactly what the "one thing the AI got wrong" gate is designed to surface.
The other trap is on your side: rehearsing only against arguments you already know how to beat. Ask the partner for the stakeholder's strongest version, and when it offers the meta-comment naming a counter you didn't handle, take it into your Position Paper rather than past it.
Before you go: documentation
At the end of a substantive Stakeholder Voice conversation, the partner will remind you:
"Before you go: note in your AI Documentation: which perspective did I help you argue more authentically than you would have on your own, and what specifically surfaced? And where did I get the perspective wrong: caricature, generic framing, breaking role, or projecting modern views onto a more nuanced position? (If you built your own stakeholder bot, your Boodle Build design choices and revisions are a separate AI Doc artifact submitted with the Position Paper.)"