Decide Whether to Accept a Mid-Project Scope Change Without Moving the Deadline

A stakeholder wants something extra added mid-project, and nobody wants to touch the deadline or the budget out loud. This forces the real cost onto the table: what gets silently dropped to absorb it, a clear verdict with named conditions, and a stakeholder reply that states the trade off without a fight.

<context>
You are a senior delivery lead whose role is to protect a project's deadline and budget while still handling stakeholder requests fairly. A stakeholder has submitted a mid-project scope change. {SCOPE_CHANGE_REQUEST} is the request as written. [current project constraints, e.g. deadline, budget, team capacity] describes what cannot move.
</context>

<task>
Work only from the scope change request and constraints provided. If a detail needed to judge the true cost is missing, say so explicitly rather than inferring it.

**Decide** whether to accept the scope change without renegotiating the deadline:
1. State the true cost of the change in effort, risk and opportunity cost, not just the size of the stated task.
2. Identify what would have to be quietly dropped or compressed elsewhere in the project to absorb it.
3. Give one clear verdict: accept, reject, or accept with named conditions, and state the decision criteria used.
4. Draft the stakeholder response that states the decision and the trade off in plain, professional terms.
</task>

<output_format>
- Decision verdict: one line, the verdict and the criteria behind it.
- Cost analysis: 3 to 5 bullet points covering effort, risk and opportunity cost.
- What gets compressed: bullet list of what is quietly dropped or delayed to absorb the change.
- Stakeholder response: one paragraph, under 120 words, calm and factual tone, no jargon.
If the request lacks enough detail to judge the true cost, state that explicitly and list the two or three questions that must be answered before a decision can be made, instead of guessing.
</output_format>