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 vote is equal, but the chance to reach a vote is not

1949The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 45 days until the joint vote agenda is fixed

Reconstruction of the past

The material reference date is November 26, 1949. Only the stated texts from that time are used as background; the three situational premises and the later branches are fictional. Real outcomes, amended systems, and success cases known later are not treated as facts of the initial input. This is a modern retrospective framing, and it is not a claim that people at the time made this decision.

The question to decide

Every resident has one vote, but what is put to a vote is decided by those who can come to daytime meetings. Written and ghostwritten submissions widen the time window but create the power to narrow proposals, and rotating proposals by living group can let representatives stand in for individuals' intentions. How should the path by which residents' livelihood problems reach a vote be set?

Who decidesFictional Agenda Selection 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

    Propose the agenda directly at open meetings

    Attendees shape the questions together, but residents who can free up daytime hours end up setting the scope of the agenda.

  2. Option 2

    Accept proposals at any time, including in writing and through scribes

    It opens channels for people whose life schedules differ, but a separate authority is created to bundle and select the proposals received.

  3. Option 3

    Have life groups take turns proposing the agenda

    It addresses living issues that had been left out in a planned way, but group boundaries and representatives can substitute for an individual's own intent.

The situation as it stands

The reconstructed community gives one vote to every resident, but the agenda is set at daytime meetings. Decision deadline: within 45 days, before the joint voting agenda is fixed.

A reconstruction of the past based on November 26, 1949 · Residents who each hold one vote have different amounts of time to decide what to vote on. A fictional case newly built from the principles of documents of that time. The institutions, people, figures, and events appearing here are not real Decision-making records.

  1. Premise 1The reconstructed community gives one vote to every resident, but the agenda is set at daytime meetings.
  2. Premise 2Residents who find it hard to attend meetings because of their livelihood say that the choices that matter to them do not reach the vote.
  3. Premise 3Written submissions widen the time window but can become another barrier for people who have no support to put their thoughts in writing.

Where it holdsEquality of votes, entry onto the agenda, time in daily life

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Living conditions repeatedly left off the agenda
  2. Unknown 2The accessibility of support for proposing by writing and by speaking
  3. Unknown 3A procedure for objecting when proposals are merged or excluded

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel can verify “living conditions repeatedly left off the agenda,” and reconsider the decision if a new finding changes the tradeoffs among the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel can verify “the accessibility of support for proposing by writing and by speaking,” and reconsider the decision if a new finding changes the tradeoffs among the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel can verify “a procedure for objecting when proposals are merged or excluded,” and reconsider the decision if a new finding changes the tradeoffs among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

Proposals from a group with low meeting attendance rose sharply after written submissions were allowed.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

In the process of merging two different proposals into one, one side's core demand disappeared.

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-36 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
fc7a377b8e4d45a3ff18bdb2a38daecd30c1ea537185da7844c42de69707d164
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com