Game Theory Perspective: When an interviewer asks "Do you have other offers?", how to leverage Nash Equilibrium to maximize gains?

When an interviewer casually asks "Do you have other offers?" at the close of an interview, never mistake it for idle curiosity or a simple honesty test. Fundamentally, this initiates a calculated game of incomplete information aimed at probing your hand by eliminating information asymmetry. The goal is not to track your career, but to pinpoint your BATNA, thereby seizing absolute pricing power during the subsequent salary negotiation. For candidates, this is a classic interview bidding trap: total candor risks the anchoring effect, resulting in an offer barely above your baseline and eliminating your premium, while a lack of leverage may force you to accept a below-market offer.

Core Game Theory Model: Why "Do You Have Other Offers" Is the Litmus Test for Information Asymmetry

When an interviewer seemingly casually throws out the question "Do you have other offers?" at the end of an interview, this is by no means simple small talk, but the beginning of a typical Game of Incomplete Information. From the perspective of game theory, this moment not only determines whether you get the offer but also directly determines who holds the pricing power for that offer.

Information Asymmetry and Pricing Power

At the table of labor negotiations, Information Asymmetry is a core feature. As a job seeker, you possess private information regarding your True Market Value and reservation price, about which the employer knows very little. What the employer possesses is private information regarding the position's budget cap and level of urgency.

The fundamental motivation behind the interviewer asking this question is to attempt to eliminate this information asymmetry, thereby conducting a more precise "valuation." As pointed out in Analysis of Interview Salary Negotiation Strategies, an interviewer's valuation of a candidate is not fixed but is highly susceptible to psychological factors and on-site information disclosure. Under conditions of information asymmetry, the effect of Anchoring is amplified. If the interviewer can detect that you have no other options, they gain a huge pricing advantage and are very likely to offer a salary only slightly above your psychological bottom line, rather than a salary at the high end of the market.

Probing Your BATNA

In negotiation theory, the essence of this question is probing your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).

• If you have a high-quality Offer: It means your BATNA value is high; if the current negotiation breaks down, you still have a good fallback.
• If you have no Offer: It means your BATNA value is extremely low (possibly unemployment or staying at your current company), and your negotiation Leverage consequently drops to zero.

According to Research on Fallback Strategies in Negotiation, the party with a clear BATNA can usually secure more benefits because it determines the negotiator's confidence. Job seekers lacking a BATNA often fall into a passive position and may even be forced to accept a "forced compromise" below their expectations.

Therefore, this Q&A session is not a moral test of honesty, but a strategic game regarding the signaling of your hand. What you need to do is use strategic information disclosure to let the interviewer perceive that you possess a strong BATNA, while avoiding losing bargaining room by over-exposing your hand. This structural game relationship determines that we cannot simply respond by "telling it like it is," but need to introduce the calculation of mathematical expectation to find the optimal solution.

Payoff Matrix Analysis: The Mathematical Expectation of Honesty, Concealment, and Bluffing

In game theory, the essence of any decision is the calculation of "Expected Value." When an interviewer asks, "Do you have other offers?", this is not just a behavioral interview question but an incomplete information game. We can construct a conceptual Payoff Matrix, categorizing the candidate's strategies into three types: Full Disclosure, Strategic Ambiguity, and Bluffing.

By analyzing the potential rewards and risks of each strategy under different employer reactions, we can deduce why "honest people" often lose out, while "liars" face excessive risks.

1. Strategy Payoff Matrix Model

To quantify the decision, we set the goal as salary maximization, while absolutely avoiding Offer withdrawal (infinite risk).

2. In-depth Analysis: Why "Strategic Ambiguity" is the Local Optimum

From the perspective of mathematical expectation, Strategic Ambiguity is often the dominant strategy in this game because it leverages the price anchoring effect caused by information asymmetry.

• Countering the "Lowball Anchor": If you choose Strategy A (Full Disclosure), you are effectively establishing a concrete BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) for your opponent. Once the bottom card is shown, the rational decision for the company is to pay BATNA + ε (an amount slightly higher than the alternative) to win you, rather than paying the maximum budget they were originally willing to pay. All "Consumer Surplus" (in this context, the difference between the company's budget and your expected salary) is taken by the company.
• Avoiding "Catastrophic Risk": If you choose Strategy B (Bluffing), although you might profit in the short term, you introduce a "verification" variable. In the modern workplace background check system, the cost of verification is extremely low. As pointed out in retreat strategies in negotiation, BATNA is the source of confidence, but if the BATNA is forged, your bargaining power collapses instantly once exposed. The risk of a high drop-off will cause the interviewer to feel deceived, leading to the withdrawal of the Offer.
• Ambiguous Premium Power: Strategy C (Strategic Ambiguity) creates a range. By informing the other party that you "have options," you establish your scarcity (i.e., you don't have to go to this specific company), forcing the other party to give a quote based on the upper limit of fair market value to avoid the risk of "losing a suitable candidate," rather than a quote based on your bottom line.

3. Insights from Nash Equilibrium

In this matrix, the Nash Equilibrium is not always "complete honesty" or "complete deception."

• If all candidates are honest, the optimal solution for companies is to suppress prices.
• If all candidates lie, the optimal solution for companies is to mandatorily require salary proof (Defection).
• The true equilibrium point lies in "Verifiable Ambiguity": The signal you send is strong enough to indicate you have other choices, making the company afraid to easily lowball; at the same time, you retain specific numerical privacy, avoiding being precisely "harvested" of surplus value by the other party.

Therefore, in this round of the game, rational job seekers should not pursue "transparency," but rather "signal validity." By blurring specific numbers, you kick the pricing ball back to the interviewer, forcing them to make a pricing decision more favorable to you under uncertainty.

Finding Nash Equilibrium: Deducing Optimal Strategies Under Different Bargaining Chips

In game theory, Nash Equilibrium refers to a combination of strategies where, as long as the opponent does not change their strategy, you cannot gain any benefit—and might even suffer a loss—by unilaterally changing your own strategy. In other words, this is the "most stable" outcome that both negotiating parties can accept based on the currently available information.

When an interviewer asks, "Do you have other offers on hand?", finding the Nash Equilibrium does not mean you must "win" over the other party. Instead, based on the chips you hold (BATNA, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), it involves finding that balance point where the other party dares not easily suppress the price, and you do not lose the opportunity due to being overly aggressive.

The optimal strategy is never static; it depends on your actual bargaining power. We break this game down into three typical chip scenarios to analyze how to lock in the equilibrium point that maximizes benefits in different situations.

1. Strong Chip Scenario: Holding a Better or Equivalent Offer

When you have a clear BATNA (e.g., a high-salary offer from a competitor), the scale of information asymmetry in the game tilts in your favor. At this time, the Nash Equilibrium point is usually built on a "Credible Threat."

• Strategy Deduction: Adopt Limited Honesty. You can generously admit to having other offers, or even reveal the approximate salary range, but there is no need to disclose the specific company name (unless to apply pressure using a competitive relationship).
• Equilibrium Logic:
• • For you: Displaying your BATNA proves your market value. It not only anchors the salary floor but also lowers the opponent's expectation of "picking up a bargain at a low price."
  • For the interviewer: Once it is confirmed that you have a "safety net" to retreat to at any time, the risk of lowering the price (losing the candidate) becomes far higher than the cost of paying a premium. At this point, paying a salary consistent with the high end of the market becomes the rational choice for the interviewer.
• Actionable Advice: "I do have two offers currently under discussion, with a salary range roughly between X and Y. However, I value the technical challenges of this team more, so I want to prioritize seeing the sincerity here."

2. Weak Chip Scenario: No Other Offers on Hand

This is the scenario most likely to fall into the "Prisoner's Dilemma." If you tell the truth and say "no," the interviewer's optimal strategy is to use your urgency to suppress the price; if you lie, you face the risk of being exposed during background checks (negative payoff).

• Strategy Deduction: Adopt Strategic Ambiguity. Do not answer "yes" or "no" directly. Instead, shift the topic from "whether there is an offer" to "ongoing processes" or "market value."
• Equilibrium Logic:
• • By using vague information (such as "looking at a few opportunities" or "in the interview process"), you retain a sense of mystery and prevent the interviewer from confirming your bottom card (i.e., that your BATNA is zero).
  • In this state of incomplete information, a rational interviewer cannot determine if you are truly "committed solely to them." To avoid losing a qualified candidate due to misjudgment, they tend to give an offer based on fair market value rather than an extremely low price. This is the best Nash Equilibrium a weaker party can strive for.
• Actionable Advice: "I am currently looking at opportunities in a few different directions and am at different stages of the process. However, at this stage, I am mainly focused on role alignment and haven't made a final decision yet."

3. Bluffing Scenario: Attempting to Forge Offers by Lying

This strategy is similar to "false signals" in game theory. Although it may bring high returns, in repeated games (considering background checks and reputation within the circle), it is often an unstable equilibrium.

• Strategy Deduction: Force the other party to raise the price by fabricating a high-salary offer.
• Equilibrium Logic:
• • According to Professor Zhang Weiying's discussion on Nash Equilibrium, in long-term or repeated interactions, cooperation and honesty often yield better equilibrium results than mutual deception.
  • Once the interviewer asks to "show a screenshot of the offer" or conducts a detailed background check (verification cost is extremely low), your strategy will collapse instantly, leading to the offer being rescinded (payoff drops to negative infinity).
  • Unless you are certain that the other party desperately needs someone and has extremely weak verification capabilities, "honest ambiguity" is far more consistent with the survival rules of Nash Equilibrium than "specific lies."
• Actionable Advice: Avoid lying directly. If you must increase your leverage, you can cite quotes from headhunters or public market salary reports as supporting evidence, rather than fabricating a non-existent offer.

Scenario 1 (Strong BATNA): Establishing a "Credible Threat" to Force a Price Increase

In game theory, when you hold an offer that is better than currently expected, you possess a powerful BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). At this point, your goal is no longer to request that the other party "give" you a high salary, but to change the interviewer's Payoff Matrix by revealing your hand, forcing them to proactively increase their offer to avoid the negative payoff of "talent loss."

Understanding the Mathematical Logic of "Credible Threats"

One of the core concepts of game theory is the "Credible Threat." In salary negotiations, if the interviewer believes you have no way out (i.e., your BATNA is zero or very weak), their Dominant Strategy is cost minimization, which means suppressing the salary. However, once you demonstrate a real, high-value external offer, you introduce a new variable: the cost of rejection.

As business negotiation research points out, the party with a clear BATNA often gains more benefits in negotiations because it determines the negotiator's bottom line and confidence. At this stage, the interviewer's strategy must shift from "cost minimization" to "talent retention," because if they do not match or exceed your existing offer, the result will be a certain "deal failure" (you choosing another company), which is a net loss for them given the recruitment costs already incurred.

How to Use a Strong BATNA to Secure a Premium

To maximize benefits, you need to construct a clear logical flow and convey the following signal to the other party:

"If you offer X, I will choose the competitor; if you offer X + Y, I will choose you."

The specific operational steps are as follows:

1. Clarify the Anchor (Anchoring): Do not be vague. Directly state the specific competitiveness of the offer you have (e.g., "The competitor offered a Total Package of 500k"). This is not just a number; it is your "Nash Equilibrium point" for the negotiation—below this point, cooperation cannot be achieved.
2. Quantify Switching Costs: Merely matching the price is not enough. You need to imply that to make you give up the offer already in hand and bear the risk of a new environment, an additional premium (Y) is required. You can phrase it like this: "Although I am very inclined to join your team, the salary structure offered by the other company is very attractive. If you can offer [X + 10%], I can reject the other side immediately without hesitation."
3. Time Urgency: Emphasize the validity period of the external offer (e.g., "I need to reply by Friday"). This forces HR to shorten the decision-making process and reduce the time spent on internal price comparison and hesitation.

Beware of the "Winner's Curse": When Not to Reveal Your Hand

Having an offer does not equate to having a strong BATNA. A common strategic misjudgment is: prematurely revealing an offer that is lower than the target company's budget.

Suppose the target company's budget range is 40k-50k, and you have a 35k offer in hand. If you excitedly reveal the 35k card, you are actually giving the other party an opportunity for "downward anchoring"—they only need to offer 36k to beat the competitor, whereas they might have originally intended to start at 40k.

Therefore, only when your BATNA is higher than or close to the target company's psychological bottom line should you present it as a "credible threat"; otherwise, you should adjust your strategy to handle it vaguely (see the next section) to avoid limiting your upside potential due to a weak hand.

Scenario 2 (Zero BATNA): Using "Ambiguity" to Avoid Having Your Hand Revealed

In game theory, the most dangerous situation is Zero BATNA (No Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), meaning you have no other offers on hand and urgently need this job. In this case, if the interviewer, as a rational opponent, fully grasps this bottom line of yours, according to Nash Equilibrium deduction, their Dominant Strategy is inevitably to offer the lowest salary (Reservation Price) you can accept, rather than the market average.

This is like a poker game where you play with your cards face up, telling your opponent you only have a small card; naturally, the opponent will use this as a basis to drive down the price. Therefore, without an actual Offer as a bargaining chip, your core strategy should shift from "offense" to "defense," utilizing Information Asymmetry and Ambiguity to protect your bargaining power.

1. Avoid Directly Exposing a "No Way Out" Situation

When asked "Do you have other offers on hand?", many job seekers, out of honesty, will answer directly: "No, I only applied to your company." Emotionally, this expresses loyalty, but at the game theory level, this is equivalent to giving up all defenses.

As pointed out by legal and negotiation expert analysis, negotiators lacking a BATNA often fall into a passive position, or are even forced to sign a "treaty under duress." Once the company confirms your status as "available on call" (Availability is too high), your Leverage in salary negotiations will instantly drop to zero.

2. Strategic Ambiguity: Building "Market Validation" Signals

Since you cannot lie (extremely high risk, see next section), and cannot bluntly say "no," the optimal solution is to use "ongoing market validation" (Market Validation) as a substitute signal. You do not need to fabricate a specific Offer, but you need to demonstrate that you, as a "scarce resource," are being actively approached by the market.

This strategy forces the interviewer to introduce an uncertainty variable into their decision model: although you do not have an Offer right now, you are in contact with other companies, and the probability of obtaining an Offer in the future is $P > 0$. To avoid the risk of potentially losing you in the future, the company tends to offer a relatively fair market price rather than pressing down to the bottom line.

Suggested Script Logic (Signaling):

Interviewer: "Do you currently have other offers on hand?"

Low Leverage Answer (Wrong): "Not for now, I just started looking for opportunities/I only like your company."

Ambiguous High Leverage Answer (Recommended):
"I am currently at different stages of engagement (Initial/Final stages) with several companies in the industry. Although specific Offer details haven't been finalized yet, the feedback so far has been quite positive. However, based on my understanding of your company's business and team, this remains my top choice. If the salary meets market expectations, I will prioritize considering this opportunity."

3. Create a "Sense of Urgency" Rather Than "Price Competition"

In a Zero BATNA situation, attempting to drive up the price by bluffing is very dangerous. Instead, you should shift the focus of the game from "price" to "time" and "fit."

• Convey Activity: Emphasize that you are "Actively Interviewing." This implies that if the company decides too slowly, your BATNA status could change from "zero" to "strong" at any moment, thereby increasing the company's time costs.
• Anchor Market Value: Even without a competing Offer, you can still cite information provided by headhunters or industry reports to anchor the salary range, implying that your expectations are based on objective market data rather than subjective demands.

Through this "ambiguity" strategy, although you haven't played a specific card (Offer), you have successfully hidden your hand, maintained the balance of power at the gaming table, and prevented the other party from driving down the stakes without scruples.

Scenario 3 (Fake Offer): Why "Bluffing" is a Negative Expected Value Strategy from a Probability Perspective

In the high-pressure environment of salary negotiation, many candidates feel a dangerous impulse: if there are no other Offers, can one fabricate a competing Offer out of thin air to raise their value? This strategy is called "Bluffing" at the poker table. Although bluffing is an advanced skill in Texas Hold'em, in the game model of job interviews, fabricating an Offer is often an absolute negative expected value strategy from the perspective of Mathematical Expectation (Expected Value, EV).

1. Expected Value Analysis: Limited Upside, Infinite Downside

Rational players do not just look at "how much they win," but calculate "expected value." We can use a simple formula to evaluate the revenue model of the "Fake Offer" strategy:

• Gain (Upside): If the bluff succeeds, you might get an extra 10% - 20% salary increase. This is a marginal gain with a cap.
• Loss (Downside): If the bluff fails, the consequence is not just a breakdown in negotiations, but the Offer being rescinded (Rescinded Offer) and being put on an "integrity blacklist" within the industry. For a career, this loss approaches infinity (-∞).
• Probability: Even if the probability of being exposed $P_{Failure}$ is only 5% or 10%, because the weight of the loss term is extremely large, the final $EV$ is still negative.

In game theory, this belongs to typical asymmetric risk. Taking a devastating hit to fight for a limited premium is irrational strategically.

2. The Trap from "One-shot Game" to "Repeated Game"

Many candidates mistakenly believe that an interview is a "One-shot Game"—as long as they get the Offer and join, the lies during the interview are over. However, a career is essentially a Repeated Game.

According to research on the Prisoner's Dilemma and Repeated Games, in infinite or multiple repeated games, once a participant is found to have adopted a "betrayal" (such as fraud) strategy, the opponent will no longer trust them in subsequent rounds, or even adopt punitive strategies. In the workplace, this manifests as strict scrutiny during the Background Check phase, or being marginalized after joining due to a lack of integrity records. The speed of information flow in HR circles (especially within the same industry) far exceeds imagination; a single failed "bluff" can cause your credibility in that industry to drop to zero.

3. The "Winner's Curse" at the Execution Level

Even if you possess extremely high psychological quality, fabricating an Offer faces huge technical collapse risks at the execution level. In game theory, this is similar to a variant of the "Winner's Curse"—you win the negotiation but lose the result.

Senior HRs or Hiring Managers usually have a Verification Mechanism to test the credibility of threats:

• Requesting Proof: Big tech HRs may politely ask to see screenshots or emails of the competing Offer (with sensitive information redacted) as a basis for applying for special salary approval. At this point, if you cannot provide it, the lie is immediately exposed.
• Specific Detail Questioning: "What is their Vesting Schedule?" "Does the Sign-on Bonus have a Clawback clause?" Fabricators find it hard to be seamless on these high-granularity details.
• Going with the Flow: If your "Fake Offer" is too high and exceeds the other party's budget cap (BATNA), they may directly congratulate you and give up fighting for you. At this point, you will fall into a dilemma: either admit you lied or be forced to give up the job at hand to accept that "non-existent Offer."

4. Strategic Advice: Replace "Precise Lies" with "Vague Truths"

Do not try to build a Nash Equilibrium by lying. If you indeed do not have an Offer but believe you are undervalued, a better strategy is to return to the "ambiguity" strategy mentioned in Scenario 2:

"Currently, I am still in the interview process with several other companies and have not yet received written documents, but my intention towards your company is stronger, and I hope to reach an agreement within this range."

This phrasing preserves the signaling of competition while being impeccable on the factual level, avoiding the catastrophic consequences caused by a failed "bluff." Remember, in the long cycle of career development, Integrity itself is a high-value long-term asset.

Execution: Negotiation Scripts Aligned with Game Theory Logic

Understanding the theoretical model of Nash Equilibrium is just the first step; the real challenge lies in translating this abstract mathematical logic into appropriate expressions within an interview setting. In classic Game Theory models, participants are often assumed to be absolutely rational "economic men," but in real workplace negotiations, emotions, Likability, and the communication atmosphere are key hidden variables affecting the final Payoff Matrix.

Knowing that you "should demonstrate a competitive offer" is not the same as "knowing how to demonstrate it." If you appear too arrogant or aggressive when conveying this information, you are actually altering the interviewer's payoff function—they may anticipate that you will be difficult to manage (potential costs rise) and would rather choose to give up on hiring (return drops to zero) than accept your equilibrium offer. Therefore, sophisticated negotiators know how to wrap game strategies in professionalism and affinity, ensuring that HR perceives the "risk of losing a talent" rather than the "displeasure of being coerced."

The following section will deconstruct this strategy from a practical level, focusing on resolving two core execution issues: first, how to release scarcity signals through "strategic ambiguity" to increase your value without revealing your hand; second, how to utilize "counter-game" techniques to hold your boundaries when facing pressure tests from HR, ensuring the negotiation does not collapse.

Signaling Techniques: How to Showcase Scarcity Without Revealing Your Bottom Line

In Game Theory, "Signaling" is a key method to break information asymmetry. As a job seeker, your goal is to transmit the signal "I am a scarce resource" to the interviewer, while maintaining "Strategic Ambiguity"—that is, not easily revealing your specific cards (such as exact salary figures or Offer details). Once you reveal your specific BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) figures too early, the opponent's game strategy instantly collapses from "bidding based on your value" to "just needing to be slightly higher than your backup Offer."

Below are several specific signaling scripts designed to demonstrate high market value while avoiding being "anchored" by the other party too early.

1. Script Template: Using "Progress Gap" to Create Urgency

When you haven't received a written Offer yet but are in the final interview stage, you can use the concept of a "Ghost BATNA"—enhancing bargaining power by describing high-probability potential Offers.

Script Example:
"Currently, I am in the final interview stage with two other [same industry/same tier] companies, and one has already entered the salary negotiation phase. However, I am more interested in our team's technical direction, so I hope to prioritize confirming my intention here. If the process goes smoothly, what is the earliest we can expect a result?"

Game Logic Analysis:
This statement does not reveal specific salary figures, avoiding being lowballed by the other party. It releases two strong signals:

1. Market Validation: Other companies are also competing for you, indicating you possess general value.
2. Time Scarcity: Implies that the decision window left for the other party is closing, forcing them to accelerate the process and provide a sincere offer to avoid being "out of the game" due to acting too slowly.

2. Script Template: Blurring Specific Amounts

When you already have an Offer in hand but the amount is lower than expected, or you wish to strive for a higher premium, avoid directly quoting the other party's number; otherwise, this becomes your salary "ceiling."

Script Example:
"To be honest, I already have a very competitive Offer in terms of salary structure, covering sign-on bonuses and options. But I personally value the development of our company's platform very much. If we can provide a compensation package in the top 25% percentile of the market, I will choose to join without hesitation."

Game Logic Analysis:
Here, the vague term "competitive" is used so the other party cannot precisely calculate your bottom line. At the same time, you shift the anchor point from "a specific X amount" to the relative standard of "top 25% of the market." According to Forward Pathway's analysis on negotiation psychology, this vague competitive reference can effectively trigger the other party's "loss aversion" psychology, making them inclined to offer the upper limit within their budget to avoid the risk of losing the candidate.

3. Handling the "Which Company" Follow-up: Do’s and Don’ts

When interviewers feel competitive pressure, they often probe in reverse: "Which company gave the Offer?" This is a typical "information probing" behavior. In the game, revealing specific names may put you at a disadvantage (for example, if they know that company generally pays low salaries, your threat becomes invalid).

It is recommended to adopt the strategy of "revealing the tier only, not the name," which maintains authenticity (Integrity in E-E-A-T) and preserves the gaming advantage.

By using this combination of "confirmed competitive relationship + vague specific details," you successfully construct a Nash Equilibrium point: the interviewer's optimal strategy is no longer to probe with low prices to ensure they can recruit you, but to directly give the most sincere Offer within their capacity. As mentioned in the Programmer Job Hopping Salary Negotiation Guide, the key to negotiating salary elegantly lies in demonstrating value and ability, not merely bargaining.

The "Counter-Game" to Follow-up Questions: When HR Pressures You to See Offer Details

In the context of game theory, when HR asks, "Could you send a screenshot of that Offer for our reference?" or "We need to see the specific terms to apply for special approval," this is known at the poker table as a "Call". This is not just a procedural requirement; it is an extreme stress test regarding the authenticity of the cards you hold.

At this moment, if your reaction is panic or direct refusal, it might be judged as "Bluffing"; but if you reveal everything without reservation, you lose all information advantage regarding your hand. The core strategy to handle this situation is to find the Nash equilibrium between verifying authenticity and strictly guarding commercial secrets.

1. Identify the Intention: "Process Compliance" or "Psychological Warfare"?

HR usually has two motives for asking to see an Offer:

• Compliance Verification: Compensation approval in big tech companies requires "competitor Offers" as anchor data to justify giving you a high salary.
• Bottom-line Testing: Attempting to obtain the exact quote from the other company to offer only a minimal increase (e.g., adding only 5% on top of the other offer), precisely squeezing your consumer surplus.

Regardless of the situation, your response principle must be unified: Prove existence, but hide the bottom line.

2. Strategy 1: Build a Defensive Shield with "Professionalism"

The highest level of refusal is not "I don't want to give it," but "I cannot give it due to professional ethics." This not only resolves the awkwardness but also demonstrates to your potential employer that you are a candidate who keeps secrets and is trustworthy.

Suggested Script:

"I fully understand that internal company approval requires a basis, and this is also to help me secure better treatment. However, just as I would strictly protect our company's compensation confidentiality in the future, I have also reached a verbal confidentiality consensus (or signed an NDA) with that company. Directly forwarding emails containing specific salary structures and terms might not align with professional standards. But I can assure you of the information's authenticity. Can we proceed based on my current expected salary [specific number]?"

This response utilizes trust building mechanisms in psychology, implying that if you easily sell out the previous company now, you might also sell out the current company in the future. Most professional HRs will stop pressuring after hearing "confidentiality principles," as continuing to ask would appear unprofessional.

3. Strategy 2: Minimized Information Disclosure (Redacted Proof)

If HR states that "the process cannot proceed without proof," you can choose to "show your cards conditionally." This is like showing only one card in Texas Hold'em, proving you have the goods without revealing the specific face of the cards.

Operational Steps:

1. Partial Redaction: Screenshot the Offer email or employment letter, but you must black out specific salary figures, option details, and specific job grades (if the grade can be used to directly calculate salary).
2. Retain Key Metadata: Keep the email date (to prove it is recent), sender domain (to prove it is a major company, e.g., @bytedance.com), and pleasantries in the body text (e.g., "Sincerely invite you to join...").
3. Accompanying Script:
   > "To cooperate with the process, I have captured the header information of the Offer email for you to verify the time and source, but I have redacted the specific terms section. I hope for your understanding."

4. Beware of the Legal Risks of "Fake Offers"

In the game, while "strategic ambiguity" is allowed, you must never cross the red line of integrity. Never forge a non-existent Offer document. Many background check companies have the ability to verify the authenticity of your resume. Once discovered forging documents, you face the risk of being blacklisted in the industry.

If your "other Offer" is actually a "Ghost BATNA" that hasn't landed yet—i.e., a verbal promise or a high-probability event, rather than a written document—then sticking to the first strategy (confidentiality principle) is the only Nash equilibrium solution. At this point, your confidence comes from self-assurance in your market value, not that piece of paper.

Remember, in this round of "counter-game," setting boundaries often increases your perceived value. A candidate who is on call and holds nothing back is often seen as oversupplied, while a negotiator with principles and a sense of propriety fits the profile of high-salary talent.