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 same participation fee, a different weight of choice in every circumstance

1979The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 21 days before the recruitment notice is finalized

Reconstruction of the past

The data reference date is 1979-04-19. Only the original texts of that time that are explicitly stated are used as background; the three situational premises and the later analysis are invented. Actual outcomes, amended systems, and success stories known later are not used as facts of the initial input. This is a modern retrospective framing, not a claim that people of that time made this decision.

The question to decide

Without a research participation fee, people who cannot afford the costs are excluded; with a reward, it can become an incentive that is hard to refuse for people who are struggling to get by. Counting only actual expenses leaves out unrecorded time and care. How should compensation be designed to keep the participation opportunity open while preserving voluntary choice?

Who decidesFictional research participant protection 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

    Pay the same flat amount to all participants

    Keeps the explanation and payment simple, but reflects less the differences in inducement and burden across circumstances.

  2. Option 2

    Pay for actual time and expenses

    Connects to the cost of participation, but creates the burden of paperwork and time assessment and of unrecorded care work.

  3. Option 3

    Redesign the payment method, then recruit

    Checks voluntariness and access together, but delays the study schedule and the immediate chance to participate.

The situation as it stands

The fictional study must go through separate qualified harm review; here we deal with the choices about recruitment and payment. Decision deadline: within 21 days until the recruitment notice is finalized.

Reconstruction of the past as of 1979-04-19 · Research participation pay changes the choices of people who lack living expenses. It is a fictional case newly created from the principles of documents of that time. The organizations, people, figures, and events shown are not records of real Decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The fictional study must go through separate qualified harm review; here we deal with the choices about recruitment and payment.
  2. Premise 2The same amount can act as different inducements for a person who lacks living expenses and for a person with plenty, and no payment excludes people who cannot bear the cost of participation.
  3. Premise 3If only actual spending is paid for, time without receipts and the burden of care drop out of the records.

Where it holdsParticipation payment, recruitment targets, confirmation of voluntariness

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1What participants actually lose when they refuse or withdraw
  2. Unknown 2The time and care costs missing from the payment
  3. Unknown 3The gap between the harm explained and the tradeoff the individual understood

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can establish "what participants actually lose when they refuse or withdraw," and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can establish "the time and care costs missing from the payment," and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can establish "the gap between the harm explained and the tradeoff the individual understood," and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

It was confirmed that, during recruitment counseling, participants misunderstood that they could not withdraw if they were to receive payment.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

Participants without expense receipts jointly objected that their actual burden was greater.

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

How does the expansion of healing change the community's promises about distribution?

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-HEALTH-30 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
3a26f094f71454ed8c2aa05ac17cb89414f26eb4621627738b6afd542a19165d
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com