The phrase "agreement process" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to the series of steps or procedures involved in reaching an agreement between parties.
Example: "The agreement process took several weeks as both sides needed to negotiate the terms carefully."
Alternatives: "negotiation process" or "consensus-building process".
These include a reasonable legal agreement process, quick and efficient onboarding, timely responses to issues or questions about their arrangement.
In this paper, we investigate the empirical correlates of the agreement process.
Informally, the agreement process is the dialog process by which collaborators achieve joint commitment on a joint action.
The main contribution of our paper is an empirical study of some of the components of the agreement process.
We then present our theoretical model, and apply it to make predictions about the components of the agreement process.
At Acme, the project manager began by mapping the price agreement process, with team members helping to fill in process details.
A key issue of our research is how 'porous' agreement processes are, that is, how much they are affected by semantic interfacing.
And it examines several grammatical systems currently of interest to computational linguists - including spelling-change/dictionary lookup and morphological analysis, agreement processes in natural language, and lexical-functional grammar - demonstrating how complexity analysis can illuminate and improve each one.
In totality, Preminger's arguments make a strong case in favor of a derivational analysis of agreement, and whether we agree with the specific alternative he proposes or not, the arguments he presents will force us to rethink many current theoretical assumptions and to reconsider the mechanisms involved in agreement processes altogether.
The early neurophysiological manifestation of agreement casts doubt on two-stage parsing models, as agreement processes would, according to these models, be subsequent to the build-up of syntactic tree structures.
The AMA principles stop short of mandating consultation with patient groups and the development of educational materials, and do not include non-surgeon clinicians as potentially vulnerable and therefore warranting the protection of formal agreement processes.
