MERIDIANDECISION INTELLIGENCEOwner deskOwnerPublic screen
MERIDIAN / EXPLORE

From a question,
to the next decision.

View

Skin

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.

Getting the correction to the people who saw the wrong notice

2026NowDeadline · Within 24 hours before the next notice

Realistic synthesis

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

Some users believed a wrong facility-closure notice and already changed their plans. Posting only a correction on the board may be missed, but there was never an agreement to use view logs for individual outreach. To get the correction out within 24 hours, which route do you choose: the same board, contacting viewers, or a full re-notice?

Who decidesFictional local information center

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

    Post the correction on the same board

    It keeps the existing delivery method, but the error remains for people who do not return.

  2. Option 2

    Contact viewers individually

    It finds affected people directly, but takes on the burden of using records accumulated for other purposes.

  3. Option 3

    Re-notify all users

    It widens the reach of the correction, but creates unnecessary contact and notice fatigue.

The situation as it stands

The fictional center wrongly announced that the facility was closing, and some users have already made other plans. Decision deadline: within 24 hours, before the next notice.

2026 synthetic case · A correction of a wrong notice does not reach the people who saw the first notice. The people, organizations, figures, and events are fictional.

  1. Premise 1The fictional center wrongly announced that the facility was closing, and some users have already made other plans.
  2. Premise 2Board view records exist, but there was no agreement to use the records for individual contact.
  3. Premise 3A full re-notice reaches many people, but also sends repeated alerts to people the correction does not concern.

Where it holdsDelivering the correction, subscriber records, and further contact

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Other channels through which the first notice spread
  2. Unknown 2The accuracy of the view records and the contact agreement
  3. Unknown 3The cancellation cost created by the wrong information

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the other channels through which the first notice spread, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the accuracy of the view records and the contact agreement, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the cancellation cost created by the wrong information, and re-judge when a new confirmation 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 screen copy of the first notice kept being shared at another gathering.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

Some users reported that they received the correction but did not get a refund for a reservation cancellation fee they had already paid.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · The wolf and the shepherd boy

Which signals does a community that has heard repeated warnings stop believing?

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-TRUST-16 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
9787aa2870626e2a3dad96ba4a162bba70b207e6a50b60a8e1ee743eb1e253dc
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com