<p>Symmetric positional structures are often seen as conducive to peer learning, yet some argue that asymmetric expert–novice dynamics are essential in contexts such as meta-level learning, in which students shift to more advanced mathematics discourses. In this study, we investigate positioning dynamics within the context of meta-level peer learning through a case study of two 9th graders, Orna and Tamara, who participated in interviews and a peer activity aimed at shifting from visually based Configural discourse to Deductive discourse in geometry. We integrate Positioning Theory with the Commognitive framework to define the Meta-level Learning Agreement (MLA) as consisting of three components: (1) agreement on the leading discourse, (2) agreement on positions, and (3) agreement on the course of action. In their stories about peer learning during interviews, the students echoed divergent storylines: Tamara maintained a fixed expert–novice storyline, consistently positioning herself as expert, while Orna embraced a more flexible collaboration storyline. These differences played out dynamically during two meta-level shifts occurring within their peer interaction. When Configural discourse led, Tamara’s fixed expert positioning steered the solution. But once Orna began prioritizing Deductive discourse, she resisted Tamara’s position as expert. Full MLA agreement was reached only after instructor interventions, when both students prioritized Deductive discourse, agreed on a deductive course of action and assumed symmetrical co-constructor positions. These findings illuminate how symmetric and asymmetric structures function in meta-level peer learning and how mathematics discourse and positioning reciprocally shape one another. We discuss the study’s contribution to peer learning research.</p>