Effective decision-making and strategy design remain challenging in conflict analysis, particularly when managing complex multi-agent interactions. This paper addresses this challenge by introducing a \(3 \times 3\) strategy space with the three-valued rating scale. Following the Triading-Acting-Optimizing (TAO) model of three-way decision-making, we propose two dimensions of evaluation that form two triads, which are combined to support actionable strategy design. The first evaluation constructs a triad based on three levels of agreement among agents: strong-agreement, weak-agreement, and non-agreement. The second evaluation builds a triad based on agent-aggregated ratings: positivity, neutrality, and negativity. Combining these two dimensions, we define a \(3 \times 3\) strategy space comprising nine distinct regions. Within this strategy space, we derive five decision rules to guide strategic choices: acceptance under strong agreement, acceptance under weak agreement, rejection under strong agreement, rejection under weak agreement, and deferment. An example demonstrates that the proposed model prioritizes high-confidence actions, supports phased implementations, and minimizes risky decisions, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict.