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.

Feeling others' suffering at a resource allocation meeting

2090The far futureDeadline · Decision deadline: 45 days until the next allocation meeting

A leap assumed

The people, events, figures, and technology in this matter are stated assumptions. They are not to be treated as information about real individuals or as observed events. Background documents are separate sources, and symbolic interpretations are recorded as discovery paths.

The question to decide

Assume that representatives can directly feel some of the sensory experiences that a stakeholder consented to share. It is a chance to understand needs that are hard to put into words, but experiences that are easy to share might sway judgment further. Do you introduce voluntary trials into the resource allocation meeting, rotate through multiple experiences, or listen only to explanations and testimony?

Who decidesAdult representatives attending a public resource allocation meeting

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

    Introduce voluntary trials by representatives

    Understands stakeholder needs in a different way, but takes on bias in which experiences are available and how strong they are.

  2. Option 2

    Use only testimony and explanation

    Keeps a familiar judgment procedure, but may miss experiences that are hard to convey in words.

  3. Option 3

    Rotate through several experiences

    Compares differing perspectives, but consent, time, emotional burden, and experiences that do not transfer remain.

The situation as it stands

This world is premised on the assumption that technology is possible in which another person partly feels a short sensory experience that someone consented to provide. Decision deadline: 45 days until the next allocation meeting.

2090 fictional case · Re-judging by directly experiencing another person's suffering. The people, organizations, figures, and events are a synthetic premise constructed for comparison.

  1. Premise 1This world is premised on the assumption that technology is possible in which another person partly feels a short sensory experience that someone consented to provide.
  2. Premise 2Stakeholders in resource allocation claim that their needs are not conveyed by their words alone.
  3. Premise 3Experiences that are easy to share may gain greater persuasive force, and long-lasting effects are unconfirmed.

Where it holdsA representative's voluntary sharing of experience and the decision-making procedure

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1How far the fictional technology represents the original experience
  2. Unknown 2The range of stakeholders who can provide or refuse experience material
  3. Unknown 3A way to separate the intensity of the experience from actual resource needs

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation screen will establish 「how far the fictional technology represents the original experience」, and re-judge if a new finding changes the cost of the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation screen will establish 「the range of stakeholders who can provide or refuse experience material」, and re-judge if a new finding changes the cost of the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation screen will establish 「a way to separate the intensity of the experience from actual resource needs」, and re-judge if a new finding changes the cost of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

Representatives who received the same experience interpreted its meaning and urgency differently from one another.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

Stakeholders who had difficulty providing material objected that they were excluded from experience-centered meetings.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · The Lotus-eaters

If even the desire to return after being satisfied disappears, what remains of the earlier promise?

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-DESIRE-06 · version 1.4.0
Content identity, SHA-256
5a9d82310892f6dd3518a15aaf0e1e38d0fcf388ebbb41bcab55b43bc86ced40
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com