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.

Opponents have left, and support among remaining residents has grown

2082The far futureDeadline · Within 120 days until the vote on continuing the policy

A leap assumed

The people, events, figures, and contract terms are a synthetic premise. They are not statements of real cases or of current law. The source documents are the roots of the background and the norms and do not establish the premises of the scenario.

The question to decide

After the policy was implemented, some opposing residents left, and a current resident survey shows support has grown. People remain affected by the policy even after leaving, but if only pre-implementation residents are the baseline, new residents' lives are reflected less. When asking again whether to continue the policy, whose consent should be counted?

Who decidesFictional Long-Term Policy Evaluation Assembly

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

    Decide continuation by the consent of current residents

    It establishes the authority of those who live together now, but may miss the meaning of the opposition that disappeared through departure.

  2. Option 2

    Ask residents from before implementation to re-judge

    It continues the stakeholders to the original agreement, but reduces the participation of residents who have newly moved in.

  3. Option 3

    Include those who continue to be affected

    It reflects the ongoing losses and benefits, but creates the authority and cost of judging the scope of impact.

The situation as it stands

In a fictional district, some residents who opposed the policy left after its implementation, and support rose in a survey of current residents. Decision deadline: within 120 days, by the vote on continuing the policy.

2082 future synthetic item · When opponents of the policy left, the approval rate among the remaining citizens rose. The events, figures, technology, and nature of the civilization are assumptions for the question, not predictions of what will come or observed facts.

  1. Premise 1In a fictional district, some residents who opposed the policy left after its implementation, and support rose in a survey of current residents.
  2. Premise 2Among those who moved away are people who continue to be affected by the policy because of local assets and family ties.
  3. Premise 3If only residents from before implementation are used as the basis, the actual lives of those who arrived later are less reflected.

Where it holdsDeparture · approval rate · change in representativeness

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The actual relationship between the reasons for departure and the policy's impact
  2. Unknown 2Rights and burdens that remain after moving away
  3. Unknown 3The participation agreement shared by new and existing residents

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will check 'the actual relationship between the reasons for departure and the policy's impact', and re-judge if the new check changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will check 'rights and burdens that remain after moving away', and re-judge if the new check changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will check 'the participation agreement shared by new and existing residents', and re-judge if the new check changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

A fresh survey of the reasons for leaving found that housing costs unrelated to the policy also played a large part.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

New residents reported that they could not take part in the previous vote, but bear most of the current costs.

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-20 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
9fd86d217bf0a647a2cdcca9ddf5a3598f76379e9e89124a9cd8d41efd54067b
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com