How about just publishing the decisions made in the backroom deals, with a plain language summary of how each decision impacts allocation in the fishery in question, as well as the overall allocation of the State/Tribal share?

It would be easy to build an allocation tracking system that keeps constant tabs on what percentage of harvestable fish each side is allocated in each fishery. Those data could be aggregated to represent the overall percentage of harvestable fish each side has been allocated.

I imagine both sides have modeling tools (that likely disagree with each other, if the State vs. tribal forecasts are any indication). What I propose is one, agreed-to tracking system, developed and maintained by a neutral party (consultants from out of state?), that can be used to show the current allocations for individual stocks, species as a whole, and total, harvestable salmon, throughout the NOF process. Build in catch reporting (a very minor upgrade), and you've got a system that shows all stakeholders the overall allocation vs. catch and whatever individual allocations vs. catch they care to look at for deeper understanding.

Two problems I anticipate with this solution:
1. Could WDFW and the Tribes work together (even with a mediator) to establish a unified planning model? Nothing we've seen so far suggests that's at all likely.
2. (Probably very closely related) It doesn't allow for the insertions of politically-motivated decisions without clearly calling them out as such. (I think this is the transparency most sorely lacking in the process.)