Opening script: "Priya, thank you again for this — I'm genuinely excited about the Senior Analyst role and glad you pushed for me to get here. Before I sign, I want to talk through the compensation piece, because I've done some research and I think there's a gap worth discussing. Market rate for this role at comparable companies is running $88-95k, and the offer as it stands is a 4% bump from where I am now. I'd like to see if we can get closer to $85k — can we talk about what's possible?" Why it's phrased this way: opens with genuine gratitude and enthusiasm before the ask — this isn't insincere softening, it's true, and leading with it signals you're not walking in adversarially. "I've done some research" establishes you're speaking from data, not just a feeling. Naming a specific number ($85k) rather than "more money" gives Priya something concrete to respond to instead of an open-ended negotiation neither of you can anchor. Anticipated pushback #1 — "That's above our band for this level": Response: "I hear that — is the band itself something that could be revisited, or is there a different lever, like a signing bonus or an accelerated 6-month review, that could close the gap a different way?" (Keeps the goal alive by pivoting to alternative levers rather than accepting a flat no.) Anticipated pushback #2 — "Let's revisit in 6 months once you're established in the role": Response: "I can work with that if it's concrete — can we put in writing what specifically I'd need to hit and confirm the number we'd be targeting at that review, so it's not open-ended?" (Converts a vague deferral into a commitment with a number and a date.) Anticipated pushback #3 — Priya seems surprised or a little defensive, as if you're questioning her advocacy: Response: "This isn't about whether you fought for me — I know you did, and I appreciate it. This is just me making sure I'm not leaving money on the table before I sign, and I trust you to tell me straight if $85k isn't realistic." (Explicitly separates the ask from any implied criticism of her, since the relationship is described as good and worth protecting.) No ambiguity flagged — goal, relationship, and desired outcome are all clearly stated and internally consistent here.