You're comparing against a fictional character. Real mode needs a real second person.
A question on file
“How will we fight?”
Where you align
Both fight by naming the point of disagreement plainly instead of softening it. A does this when pushing back on launch pricing and on scope cuts; B does it when rejecting the off-brand design direction and the unrealistic timeline.
Both will absorb short-term pain to protect what they think matters most. A is willing to risk friction over pricing and to keep the export feature in scope; B is willing to take longer on design and walk away over the liability clause.
Where you diverge
A shows a pattern of bargaining inside the conflict, giving ground on part of the ask while defending a core line. B's episodes show cleaner refusal, with the line itself staying fixed.
A's disagreements tilt toward shaping the middle of the plan after challenge, while B's tilt toward rejecting inputs that fail a standard outright. You can see A compromise on hiring and release scope, while B rejects the timeline and clause rather than rework them in the episode.
What to pressure-test in each other
- When one of you says, "this part is non-negotiable," what has to happen next so the other person knows whether to counter, reframe, or stop pushing?
- If a decision is stuck, how will you tell the difference between "protect the principle" and "trade around the edges" given A's partial-concession pattern and B's hard-line pattern?
- What kinds of disagreement deserve a walk-away stance, and what kinds should trigger a split-the-difference move? Use the pricing, scope, timeline, and liability episodes to make the rule explicit.