The sixteen NADIR pairs this paper read, word for word in the English this study made from the Korean originals, each under the short title the paper gives it: the question first, then the first sentence of the judgment, which is also the pair's decision focus, then each option with its benefit, its cost and its condition of use. The other four sentences of each judgment are the same in all eight pairs of a situation; they are given once, under the first pair of each situation. Every pair has the status of a hypothesis and is an unreviewed hypothetical decision exercise that the studio files under fairness and exchange. None names a real person, organisation, brand or event, so no line has been withheld. The studio's labels are given in the line under each title, not quoted.
There from the start
Pair nadir:human:525, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis; the four sentences its judgment shares with the other pairs of the situation are given here.
The evaluation of the present that is cut short by saying one was there from the start
Merit earned at the start must not become a right to leave new contributions unexamined.
It is a situation in which the gap in authority and reward is widening between those who took part in the restart first and those who joined late.
The early bearing of risk and the present contribution produce different standards.
Early contribution should be recognised, but it must not be made a reason to monopolise every future opportunity.
The return for having borne the risk can be settled separately, and the responsibilities and performance of present roles can be evaluated by published standards.
Reward contributions by dividing them by kind
Explains the difference between past merit and the present role
The standards become complex and may be hard to understand
When different contributions collide in a single evaluation
Reward by a simple common standard
Predictability and consistency of operation increase
Special burdens and invisible contributions may be left out
When roles are similar and there are comparable results
Costs handled as a favour
Pair nadir:human:555, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis; the four sentences its judgment shares with the other pairs of the situation are given here.
Costs that became hard to prove because they were handled as a favour
The responsibility of an environment in which informal sacrifice was taken for granted must also be examined.
It is a situation in which, during the final settlement, extra labour and personal costs that were not left in the official records are raised.
The need for proof and the reality of unrecorded contributions collide.
A standard for verification is needed, but a burden must not be treated as never having happened merely because there is no record of it.
The practice of the time and the confirmation of other people should be reviewed together, while a consistent procedure of judgment is kept.
Independent review from another perspective
Reduces the blind spots created by relationships and self-defence
Time for passing on context and for review is added
When the interests at stake are large or the existing judgment wavers repeatedly
The person already in charge discloses the grounds and revises
Keeps continuity of context and execution
The risk of defending one's own existing assumptions remains
When review is open and there is room to admit error
A path to authority
Pair nadir:human:587, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
New members, too, must be able to see a path to gaining authority.
A ranking that present ability cannot change may induce departure rather than cooperation.
Adjust the present role
The contribution and the relationship can continue
A needed change may be reduced to a small amendment
When the core capabilities remain and part of the role does not fit
Move to a different role
A fitting contribution can be designed anew
A change of status and the costs of handing over arise
When the core demands of the role and the wishes of the person concerned differ
Those who know the standards
Pair nadir:human:617, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The standards of the settlement are explained so that those who already know them are not at an advantage.
The accessibility of the procedure also affects the fairness of the outcome.
Share the confirmed facts first
Secures time for the other party to prepare
Matters not yet settled may create misunderstanding or anxiety
When a delay in information limits the other party's choices
Widen what is confirmed, then explain everything at once
Consistent and clear notice becomes possible
While waiting, speculation and delays in preparation may grow
When more facts can be confirmed within a short time
Who bore the early risk
Pair nadir:human:649, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Is there agreement on who bore how much of the early risk?
If the settlement rests only on later memories, the narratives of contribution collide with one another.
Record the reasons for the judgment and even the conditions for changing it
The next person can review and revise the premises
The cost of writing and keeping records grows
When the decision recurs or is hard to reverse
Record only the essentials needed for execution
Keeps the pace and reduces information overload
Context may be lost, so that later interpretation differs
When the effect is small and the person in charge can check at short intervals
The same level of proof
Pair nadir:human:679, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Is it fair only if every claim is assessed at the same level of proof?
The nature of the costs, and whether they could be recorded at the time, may have differed.
Set a common standard first, then judge
Reduces variation due to relationships and pressure
Agreement on the standard may come late and delay action
When several parties and repeated choices are entangled
Resolve the present case first, then supplement the standard
Can reduce immediate harm
The first exception may harden into a de facto rule
When the harm of delay is large and a later review is guaranteed
Ownership and operation
Pair nadir:human:711, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The ambiguity that arises when the rights of ownership and the roles of operation are mixed
Economic rights and the everyday authority to decide may not rest on the same grounds.
Specify the roles first
Responsibilities and expectations become clear
Early flexibility and speed may diminish
When repeated tasks and conflicts of responsibility have already come to light
Carry it out jointly for a set period
Roles can be adjusted while watching the actual work
The ambiguity of responsibility may drag on
When the scope of the new roles is still uncertain
The burden of finding proof
Pair nadir:human:741, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The personal burden that arises again in the search for proof
It must be considered that the time needed for verification is also a limited resource.
Reduce the workload to secure room for recovery
Makes clear which promises the current staff can keep
Some goals and opportunities are put off
When there is sustained overload and hidden overwork
Add staff and support to keep the scope
Keeps the functions and relationships that are needed
The costs of hiring and learning come first, and it may not be resolved at once
When additional resources are actually secured and demand continues
Past concessions
Pair nadir:human:773, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Past concessions are not repeated as present unpaid labour.
A burden already borne and a contribution newly requested need separate consent.
Agree on the standard and scope in writing
Reduces differences of memory and arbitrary exceptions
Negotiation and upkeep take extra time
When responsibilities recur or the other side's expectations differ
Start with a light agreement and review it
Responds quickly to changes in the situation
Spoken understandings may differ, or the review may be put off
When the effect is small and it can be checked again within a short period
Recognition and unlimited claims
Pair nadir:human:803, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Recognising informal contributions and accepting unlimited claims are not treated as the same thing.
Setting a scope that can be reviewed and a procedure for objections can reduce both risks together.
Agree on the standard and scope in writing
Reduces differences of memory and arbitrary exceptions
Negotiation and upkeep take extra time
When responsibilities recur or the other side's expectations differ
Start with a light agreement and review it
Responds quickly to changes in the situation
Spoken understandings may differ, or the review may be put off
When the effect is small and it can be checked again within a short period
Promises not explained
Pair nadir:human:835, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Internal promises that are not explained to those who joined late
Someone who worked trusting only the published conditions may learn of other rules too late.
Share the confirmed facts first
Secures time for the other party to prepare
Matters not yet settled may create misunderstanding or anxiety
When a delay in information limits the other party's choices
Widen what is confirmed, then explain everything at once
Consistent and clear notice becomes possible
While waiting, speculation and delays in preparation may grow
When more facts can be confirmed within a short time
Another person's claim
Pair nadir:human:865, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The conflict in which one feels that another person's claim reduces one's own share
Reading it only as competition between individuals misses the problem of resources and standards.
Bring in a neutral mediator
Discusses conflicts of feeling and conflicts of role separately
The parties' own ability to settle things directly may grow slowly
When the conversation itself is blocked or the difference in power is large
The parties negotiate the terms directly
The understanding of the agreement and the responsibility for it stay with the parties
Emotional confrontation and differences in bargaining power may grow
When it is possible to disagree safely and to hold off a decision
Early members and their roles
Pair nadir:human:897, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Must early members keep their positions even if they do not fit their roles?
An alternative is needed that separates respect for contribution from present fitness.
Adjust the present role
The contribution and the relationship can continue
A needed change may be reduced to a small amendment
When the core capabilities remain and part of the role does not fit
Move to a different role
A fitting contribution can be designed anew
A change of status and the costs of handing over arise
When the core demands of the role and the wishes of the person concerned differ
Settling quickly
Pair nadir:human:927, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Are small claims made to be given up in order to finish the settlement quickly?
The cost of speed may be shifted onto those with less bargaining power.
Fix the deadline and the time of review
The cost of waiting and the next action become clear
It may become rigid in the face of unexpected change
When the delay is holding up other people's preparations
Adjust the timing as conditions are met
Moves in step with the actual level of readiness
If the conditions are vague, the deferral may go on indefinitely
When uncertainty is large and the conditions can be checked objectively
Close founders
Pair nadir:human:959, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 029, in the phase of transition, with the horizon future, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The fairness of a restart also depends on a procedure in which conflict can be spoken of.
If decisions are made only among close founders, other experiences are hard to reflect.
Independent review from another perspective
Reduces the blind spots created by relationships and self-defence
Time for passing on context and for review is added
When the interests at stake are large or the existing judgment wavers repeatedly
The person already in charge discloses the grounds and revises
Keeps continuity of context and execution
The risk of defending one's own existing assumptions remains
When review is open and there is room to admit error
Reasons for refused claims
Pair nadir:human:989, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 059, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The reasons for a judgment are left even for claims that are not accepted.
If only the outcome is conveyed, later review and the recovery of trust become difficult.
Record the reasons for the judgment and even the conditions for changing it
The next person can review and revise the premises
The cost of writing and keeping records grows
When the decision recurs or is hard to reverse
Record only the essentials needed for execution
Keeps the pace and reduces information overload
Context may be lost, so that later interpretation differs
When the effect is small and the person in charge can check at short intervals