Series ID: EDKS-BASIC-ZH-0093 · Lesson No.093 · C2-Direction Criteria Negotiation

Negotiating Definitions, Standards and Criteria | 协商定义、标准与判据

Many advanced disagreements are not really disagreements about facts. They are disagreements about what the key words mean, what standard should be used, or which criterion should matter most.

At C2 direction, strong communicators do not rush straight into conclusions. They first check whether everyone is using the same definition, scale, threshold and decision rule.

很多高级讨论表面上在争“结论”，实际上争的是：什么叫成功？什么算足够证据？哪个标准更重要？达到什么程度才算合格？

Chinese Edition Hub · 中文版入口 · ← Lesson No.092 · C2-Direction Review and Expert Communication

The negotiation map | 协商地图

definition
category
criterion
standard
threshold
weighting
trade-off
measurement
decision rule
reframing

1. Definition | 定义

A definition answers:

What exactly do we mean by this term?

2. Criterion | 判据

A criterion answers:

What dimension are we judging?

Examples:

cost
speed
accuracy
fairness
reliability

3. Standard | 标准

A standard answers:

What level counts as acceptable?

4. Threshold | 阈值

A threshold is the point at which classification or action changes.

If error rate exceeds 5%, the system requires review.

5. Decision rule | 决策规则

A decision rule explains how criteria and thresholds are combined into action.

6. Same evidence, different criteria | 同证据，不同标准

One option may be best for speed but worse for cost.

7. “Better” is incomplete | “更好”不完整

Ask:

Better by what criterion?

8. “Effective” needs an outcome | “有效”必须指定结果

Effective for:

learning speed?
long-term retention?
student satisfaction?
cost efficiency?

9. “Fair” needs a model of fairness | “公平”要先定义公平

Fair can mean:

equal treatment
equal opportunity
support according to need
equal outcome

These are not identical standards.

10. “Reliable” needs context | “可靠”也要看情境

Reliable could mean:

works most of the time
fails predictably
recovers quickly
maintains consistent quality

11. Category boundaries | 类别边界

Terms such as beginner, advanced, safe or high risk require boundaries.

12. Borderline cases | 边界案例

Strong definitions explain what happens near the boundary.

13. Necessary and sufficient conditions | 必要与充分条件

Ask:

What must be true?
What, if true, is enough?

14. Operational definition | 操作性定义

Turn an abstract term into something measurable or observable.

“Fast response” = response within 2 seconds.

15. Operational definition is not the whole concept | 操作定义不是完整概念

A measure is a practical representation, not the concept itself.

16. Standards can be absolute | 绝对标准

All emergency exits must remain unobstructed.

17. Standards can be comparative | 相对标准

Option A should perform at least as well as the current system.

18. Standards can be aspirational | 目标性标准

We aim for 95% satisfaction.

19. Aspirational ≠ minimum | 目标不等于最低合格线

Do not confuse ideal targets with required thresholds.

20. Threshold choice requires justification | 阈值需要理由

Why 5%? Why not 3% or 10%?

21. Measurement error near thresholds | 阈值附近要考虑误差

A score of 79 vs 80 may not represent a meaningful real-world difference.

22. Binary categories can hide continuous reality | 二分法会隐藏连续性

pass/fail may compress a continuous distribution.

23. Criteria can conflict | 判据会冲突

Example:

faster
cheaper
more accurate

One solution may not maximise all three.

24. Trade-off | 取舍

A trade-off means improving one criterion may worsen another.

25. Weighting criteria | 判据加权

If reliability matters twice as much as speed, state that weighting explicitly.

26. Hidden weighting | 隐性加权

Many arguments appear factual while secretly prioritising one criterion.

27. Make weighting visible | 把权重说出来

If safety receives priority over cost, Option B is preferable.

28. Criteria hierarchy | 判据层级

Some criteria are mandatory; others are preferences.

must meet safety requirement
then compare cost
then compare convenience

29. Veto criterion | 一票否决判据

A failure on one critical criterion can eliminate an option regardless of strengths elsewhere.

30. Compensatory model | 可补偿模型

A weakness in one area can be offset by strength in another if the decision rule allows it.

31. Non-compensatory model | 不可补偿模型

Some thresholds cannot be offset. Safety is a common example.

32. Negotiating definitions | 协商定义

Useful language:

What exactly do we mean by…?
Are we using the term in the same way?
Could we define this more narrowly?
What would count as an example?

33. Negotiating criteria | 协商判据

Which criterion should carry the most weight?
Are we optimising for speed or reliability?
Should cost be a constraint or merely one factor?

34. Negotiating standards | 协商标准

What level would count as acceptable?
Is this a minimum requirement or a target?
What evidence would justify changing the threshold?

35. Clarify before disagreeing | 先澄清再反驳

Before I disagree, can we clarify what you mean by “effective”?

36. Detect pseudo-disagreement | 找“假分歧”

Two speakers may agree on facts but use different definitions.

37. Detect pseudo-agreement | 找“假一致”

Two speakers may use the same word while meaning different things.

38. Criteria switching | 判据偷换

Argument begins with cost, then concludes using popularity without explaining the switch.

39. Moving goalposts | 移动门槛

The required standard changes only after evidence meets the earlier standard.

40. Legitimate revision of standards | 合理修改标准

Standards may change when new evidence reveals that the original threshold was inappropriate.

41. Explain why the standard changed | 说明为什么变

Transparency distinguishes revision from arbitrary goalpost movement.

42. Benchmark | 基准

A benchmark is a comparison reference.

Compare against current performance, not an imaginary perfect system.

43. Baseline | 基线

A baseline is the starting state before change.

44. Benchmark vs baseline | 基准 vs 基线

They can overlap but serve different comparison jobs.

45. Norm-referenced vs criterion-referenced | 常模 vs 标准参照

norm-referenced: compared with others
criterion-referenced: compared with a defined standard

46. Ranking ≠ competence | 排名不等于能力

A person can rank highly in a weak group or low in a very strong group.

47. Criteria need evidence | 判据本身也需要依据

Why should this outcome matter?

48. Values enter standards | 标准也包含价值选择

Some standards reflect ethical or social priorities, not only measurement.

49. Separate empirical and normative claims | 区分事实与规范主张

Empirical: what happens?
Normative: what should matter?

50. Mandarin transfer: “标准”可对应 standard/criterion/benchmark | 不一对一

Choose English based on function.

51. Mandarin transfer: “合格”可能是 pass/acceptable/qualified | 语境不同

Check whether the issue is threshold, competence, or formal status.

52. Reading practice A | 阅读 A

Two teams disagree over which system is “better”. Team A means faster. Team B means more reliable. Once the criteria are separated, the factual disagreement largely disappears.

What was the real source of disagreement?

53. Reading practice B | 阅读 B

A school sets 80% as mastery. A student scores 79%. The score difference may be smaller than measurement uncertainty, so the classification boundary deserves careful interpretation.

What is the threshold issue?

54. Discussion practice | 讨论练习

Topic:

What should count as “successful learning”?

Negotiate:

definition
criteria
threshold
measurement

55. Decision-matrix practice | 决策矩阵

Criterion	Weight	Option A	Option B
reliability	40%	8	9
cost	30%	9	6
speed	30%	7	9

Then ask whether the weights themselves are justified.

56. Error clinic | 常见问题

Problem	Repair
We argue about “better”.	Name the criterion.
Threshold seems natural.	Ask why that number.
Criteria change mid-argument.	Make the switch explicit.
One criterion secretly dominates.	State weighting.
Facts and values blur.	Separate empirical/normative claims.

57. First weak link diagnosis | 第一个卡点诊断

same words, different meanings → definition control.
conclusion changes with metric → criterion control.
borderline cases unstable → threshold control.
trade-offs hidden → weighting control.
“should” presented as fact → normative distinction.

58. Seven-day training cycle | 七天训练

Day 1	definitions	定义
Day 2	criteria	判据
Day 3	standards/thresholds	标准阈值
Day 4	weighting/trade-offs	权重取舍
Day 5	decision rules	决策规则
Day 6	empirical vs normative	事实规范
Day 7	20-minute criteria negotiation	综合

59. Self-test | 自测

Define contested terms, separate criteria from standards, justify thresholds, make weighting explicit, distinguish empirical from normative claims, and negotiate a decision rule before debating conclusions.

60. For parents and teachers | 给家长和老师

When learners disagree, ask first whether they are using the same definition and criterion.

Reward clarification questions before rebuttal.

For Mandarin speakers, distinguish standard / criterion / benchmark / threshold explicitly because “标准” can cover several English functions.

61. Final real-world challenge | 最终真实任务

Choose a contested decision.
Define five key terms.
List four criteria.
Set one mandatory standard.
Set one threshold.
Assign weights.
Identify one trade-off.
Separate facts from values.
Negotiate a shared decision rule.
Explain how the final conclusion changes if one criterion receives more weight.

Next: Lesson No.094 | 下一课

The next lesson develops expert listening and multi-layer source tracking: following who said what, whose evidence is being quoted, how strongly each speaker endorses it, and where stance changes inside complex discussion.

Lesson No.094 · Expert Listening and Multi-Layer Source Tracking · 专家听力与多层来源追踪

Reference floor: C2-direction expert communication; definitions, criteria and thresholds are treated as explicit parts of reasoning rather than hidden assumptions.

Small Group Tutorials

How to Learn Basic English (Chinese Edition) | Lesson No.093 | Negotiating Definitions, Standards and Criteria | 协商定义、标准与判据