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 public attitude and face, in the phase of collapse, with the horizon present; none names a real person, organisation or event, so no line has been withheld. The studio's labels are given in the line under each title, not quoted.
Telling only when confirmed
Pair nadir:human:507, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis; the four sentences its judgment shares with the other pairs of the situation are given here.
The hidden delay in a principle of telling only once things are confirmed
By the time the outcome is confirmed, it may be too late for the other party to change their choice.
It is a situation in which the possibility of a halt in operations is discussed internally while normal service is promised externally.
An explanation that reduces anxiety and an explanation that guarantees a chance to prepare may differ.
There is no need to assert an outcome that is not confirmed, but one must not go so far as to hide important uncertainty.
The time the other party needs to prepare alternatives and the harm a false alarm would cause must be considered together.
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
One error, the whole criticism
Pair nadir:human:551, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis; the four sentences its judgment shares with the other pairs of the situation are given here.
The rebuttal that finds one error and makes the whole criticism void
A partial correction does not make the actual problem go away as well.
It is a situation in which, as a negative rumour spreads, the organisation tries to correct some of the facts, but the material that could explain them is scattered.
A quick rebuttal can lead to greater distrust.
Correcting what is wrong is different from denying all criticism.
The confirmed facts must be explained first, and where the material is lacking, the scope and the time of the review must be made clear.
Narrow the scope and keep the core
Concentrates resources on essential promises
Gives up some needs and opportunities
When there is little room to spare and the differences in effect are clear
Keep the full scope and reinforce support
Protects the continuity of relationships and service
If the needed resources are not secured, overload continues
When additional support is actually possible and the cost of stopping is large
The time of the next notice
Pair nadir:human:569, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Even an uncertain situation can be explained by setting the conditions and the time of the next notice.
Saying concretely what is not known helps preparation more than groundless certainty does.
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
Unconfirmed optimism
Pair nadir:human:613, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Unfavourable speculation is not answered with unconfirmed optimism.
When different unconfirmed explanations clash, the standard of fact becomes more blurred.
Decide after checking further facts
Reduces errors of assumption and needless commitment
Costs of delay and lost opportunities may arise
When information that can be checked is likely to change the conclusion
Make a limited decision on current information
Checks the actual response while acting
A wrong premise may show up as a cost of execution
When the decision can be reversed and the loss from waiting is large
Front-line staff
Pair nadir:human:631, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The explanation of a possible closure that front-line staff take on personally
Without an official position, each person ends up responding with different promises and guesses.
Coordinate the order through a single point of contact
Handles conflicts and duplicate promises at a glance
A new bottleneck may form at the coordinator
When competition for shared resources and conflicts of responsibility are large
Each person in charge coordinates autonomously within set bounds
Protects the speed and flexibility of the response on the ground
The overall effect may be missed, or the same resource may be assigned twice
When the boundaries of roles and the information shared are clear enough
Answering every rumour
Pair nadir:human:675, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Does answering every rumour produce a more accurate understanding?
The response itself may amplify claims that do not matter.
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
Customers who learn first
Pair nadir:human:693, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The time to find a substitute that only the customers who learn first are given
If the order of telling is set by the closeness of the relationship, the distribution of harm changes.
Coordinate starting with the groups most affected
Reflects differences in harm and in dependence
If the criteria cannot be explained, it may look like favouritism
When the chances of finding a substitute and the time to prepare differ greatly
Apply the same conditions to everyone
Secures consistency and predictability
May treat different burdens as the same
When the effects and the conditions of choice are similar enough
Time spent on rebuttal
Pair nadir:human:737, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The time on the ground used up again to produce material for a rebuttal
The need to explain and the resources for what is still to be carried out must be considered together.
Preserve the resources for key promises first
Leaves the options needed for recovery and for ending
Gives up some chances of expansion and short-term results
When a new commitment threatens the keeping of existing promises
Reallocate resources to attempts with large effects
Creates a chance to change a stagnant structure
If the expectation is wrong, the remaining buffer shrinks too
When the grounds for the effect and the criteria for stopping are concrete
New commitments
Pair nadir:human:755, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The risk of new commitments is not left out on the grounds of preventing fear.
New counterparties, unlike existing customers, can still make the choice to avoid the risk.
Narrow the scope and keep the core
Concentrates resources on essential promises
Gives up some needs and opportunities
When there is little room to spare and the differences in effect are clear
Keep the full scope and reinforce support
Protects the continuity of relationships and service
If the needed resources are not secured, overload continues
When additional support is actually possible and the cost of stopping is large
Explanations for insiders
Pair nadir:human:799, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
An explanation that makes sense only to insiders does not settle the questions from outside.
A connection that people who do not know the premises can also understand is needed.
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
Protecting the messenger
Pair nadir:human:817, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The way to protect the person in charge who conveys unfavourable facts
If the messenger takes the blame alone, the messenger comes to choose vague expressions over an accurate explanation.
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
Checking and defending
Pair nadir:human:861, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The burden of one person in charge handling both the checking of facts and the defence of the organisation
The incentive to admit unfavourable facts may weaken.
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
Questions after the notice
Pair nadir:human:879, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The questions that follow an external notice must also be included in the operating plan.
If the announcement is simply made and no answers are prepared, uncertainty grows by other routes.
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
A correction made late
Pair nadir:human:923, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Can a fact corrected late be made known as widely as at first?
If the correction stays only in a small place, the influence of the wrong explanation continues.
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 earlier risk explanation
Pair nadir:human:941, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 011, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
Even if the situation has improved, the earlier explanation of the risk is not quietly erased.
Only if the reasons for the change are kept can the other party judge how reliable the next notice is.
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
Problems after the rebuttal
Pair nadir:human:985, a hypothetical decision exercise of edition 5 in the studio's situation 055, unreviewed, with the status hypothesis.
The problems still to be solved after the rebuttal are kept separately.
Winning the explanation does not take the place of an actual reduction in harm.
Widen the scope to find hidden costs
Finds burdens that have moved to other people and other times
Adds a burden of extra checking to current work
When surface results and experience on the ground repeatedly differ
Inspect selectively, starting with the key risks
Concentrates on large problems with few resources
Small, scattered burdens may keep being missed
When time is limited and the effects can be put in order of priority