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.

The practice you want to remove is someone's only support

1869The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 90 days until new joint rules

Reconstruction of the past

The source reference date is 1869-01-01. Only the original texts of that time that are stated are used as background; the three situational premises and the subsequent branches are invented. Real outcomes, amended institutions, and success cases known later are not used as facts of the initial input. This is a modern retrospective construction of the question, not a claim that the people of that time made this decision.

The question to decide

The same practice is a burden to some and the only channel of support to others. Removing it without preparing a replacement can also remove support, and if the stakeholders settle it again among themselves, existing differences in power remain. On what basis should we judge whether to remove this practice, correct it based on loss, or change it through a new agreement?

Who decidesFictional Local Practice Revision Group

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

    Abolish the problematic practice in one step

    Makes the intent to change clear, but support functions performed together may also disappear suddenly.

  2. Option 2

    Revise it based on concrete losses

    Keeps the necessary functions, but creates a cost of judgment over what loss counts as enough.

  3. Option 3

    Replace it with a new agreement among the stakeholders

    Reflects the context of daily life, but earlier differences in power may carry over into the new agreement.

The situation as it stands

The reconstructed meeting tries to fix an old practice, but the same practice is a burden for some people and their only line of support. Decision deadline: within 90 days, by the new common rule.

Reconstruction of the past with a present horizon of 1869-01-01 · Calls to fix a bad practice contain different ways of life within them. This is a fictional case newly created from the principles of documents of that time. The institutions, people, figures, and events that appear are not actual records of decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The reconstructed meeting tries to fix an old practice, but the same practice is a burden for some people and their only line of support.
  2. Premise 2A blanket abolition is clear, but there is no preparation to replace the functions that practice had been performing.
  3. Premise 3If the stakeholders set the terms again, it can fit their daily life, but existing differences in power remain even in the negotiation.

Where it holdsAssessment of the practice, functions in daily life, and authority to change it

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The support and burden the practice actually provided
  2. Unknown 2The substitute functions needed immediately after abolition
  3. Unknown 3Conditions under which a person faces no disadvantage for opposing the agreement

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observations, responsible persons, and confirmation channels can verify 'the support and burden the practice actually provided,' and re-judge once new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Decide what observations, responsible persons, and confirmation channels can verify 'the substitute functions needed immediately after abolition,' and re-judge once new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Decide what observations, responsible persons, and confirmation channels can verify 'conditions under which a person faces no disadvantage for opposing the agreement,' and re-judge once 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

Where the practice was removed, costs fell, but the connection that had been helping households in difficulty was cut off as well.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A meeting of stakeholders again put only the previously powerful people forward as representatives.

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-29 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
a549356025580741c1963b4e4ff004c4a8079d0c17d8281aab78e467c5054723
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com