To reveal a pay gap, must you also reveal names?
2026NowDeadline · Within 14 days until the compensation briefing
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
A large pay gap among members doing similar work has come to light, but the data explaining careers and roles is incomplete, and the stakeholder may not wish to have their real name released. Publishing only bands by job may hide unfair differences, and waiting for an independent review delays correction and bargaining. How should the representative assembly disclose pay information?
Who decidesFictional company members' representative assembly
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…

The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
Internal materials surfaced showing large pay differences among members doing similar work in some roles. Decision deadline: within 14 days, before the compensation briefing.
2026 synthetic scenario · One team's pay disclosure exposes discrimination on another team. The people, organizations, figures, and events are fictional.
- Premise 1Internal materials surfaced showing large pay differences among members doing similar work in some roles.
- Premise 2The career and role records that could explain the differences are incomplete, and the parties may not consent to disclosure.
- Premise 3Disclosing only role bands can hide specific unfair differences.
Where it holdsScope of pay information disclosure and remedial negotiations
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The parties' choices regarding disclosure
- Unknown 2The reliability of the role records that explain the differences
- Unknown 3The funding and scope of remediation when unfair differences are found
Signals to decide again
- Define what observations, owners, and confirmation windows will verify “the parties' choices regarding disclosure,” and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the tradeoffs among the options.
- Define what observations, owners, and confirmation windows will verify “the reliability of the role records that explain the differences,” and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the tradeoffs among the options.
- Define what observations, owners, and confirmation windows will verify “the funding and scope of remediation when unfair differences are found,” and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the tradeoffs among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
An independent review found that bargaining conditions at a particular hiring period were a major cause of the differences.
The lower-paid members want named disclosure, while the higher-paid members opposed it.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
How does the community justify time not worked?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.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-WORK-21· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
b30dd013c3d64754a49ee28bbf4356059ba38e701a7c3b2f465d511994892fd3- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON