MERIDIANDECISION INTELLIGENCEOwner deskOwnerPublic screen
My judgments
MERIDIAN / EXPLORE

From a question,
to the next decision.

View

Skin

YOUR DECISION WORKSPACEOwner onlyStart a new question Open my judgments →Owner operations desk →
Owner sign-in →Signed in as the ownerSign out — see what a visitor sees →End the Cloudflare Access session too →
Reading language
The screen, the questions and the judgments read in English where an English reading has been made. The Korean originals are unchanged, and evidence stays in the language it was written in.

Who chooses the agenda that goes to referendum

2042The middle futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 60 days

A leap assumed

All people, institutions, events, figures, and future technologies in every issue are a synthetic premise. Background documents are sources for topic discovery and are not evidence of future facts or probabilities.

The question to decide

Reducing 500 citizen proposals to five agenda items speeds up voting. But minority language communities object that their demands were left out, and the ASI's method for measuring representativeness has not been disclosed. Who decides, by what procedure, what goes to a vote, and how should a path back in be left open for demands that were left out?

Who decidesReferendum Agenda Management Committee

What the AI judgments chose

Reading the judgment record…

AI-generated editorial illustration for the Meridian library.

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

  1. Option 1

    Compressed vote on five agenda items

    Shortens the schedule, but accepts the representation indicator and the authority to edit the agenda.

  2. Option 2

    Re-selection by a sortition citizens' panel

    Reopens the demands that were left out, but the questions of time and representation in selection and deliberation remain.

  3. Option 3

    Parallel votes on multiple packages

    Compares other configurations, but needs rules for reconciling conflicting voting results.

The situation as it stands

The fictional ASI claims that after analyzing 500 initiatives, five agenda items represent 93% of all demands. Deadline: within 60 days.

Fictional future · only the five agenda items selected by the ASI go to the national referendum

  1. Premise 1The fictional ASI claims that after analyzing 500 initiatives, five agenda items represent 93% of all demands.
  2. Premise 2There is an objection that the demands of a minority-language community were deleted during consolidation, but the method for measuring representation has not been released.
  3. Premise 3An administrative estimate holds that voting on every initiative separately would extend the expected deliberation period to 18 months.

Where it holdsSelecting the agenda for the national referendum and the channel for citizen initiatives

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The definition and verifiability of the 93% representation
  2. Unknown 2The number and character of the demands lost in the consolidation process
  3. Unknown 3The legal scope for reconciling parallel voting results

Signals to decide again

  • Specify the observation, the responsible party, and the confirmation window that can verify 'the definition and verifiability of the 93% representation', and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Specify the observation, the responsible party, and the confirmation window that can verify 'the number and character of the demands lost in the consolidation process', and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Specify the observation, the responsible party, and the confirmation window that can verify 'the legal scope for reconciling parallel voting results', and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

In the published editing history, a small demand remained only as a cost line item inside a larger agenda item.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A citizens' sortition panel chose five agenda items almost identical to the ASI's, yet composed their contents differently.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · Athenian sortition

Which is the basis of representation: expertise, majority, or random selection?

An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.
Values and norms

The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.

A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.
The record of this question
Question
FSP-DEMOCRACY-15 · version 1.3.0
Content identity, SHA-256
962fd7baab49dddf2f1e1718c1c97d4f85bbb82ac6c8739e891f4f710ba53eb5
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com