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.

Can judgment stay independent while taking sponsorship?

1949The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 60 days until a new sponsorship agreement

Reconstruction of the past

The material reference date is November 26, 1949. Only the stated texts from that time are used as background; the three situational premises and the later branches are fictional. Real outcomes, amended systems, and success cases known later are not treated as facts of the initial input. This is a modern retrospective framing, and it is not a claim that people at the time made this decision.

The question to decide

When a group that criticizes its sponsor applied to use space, the sponsor showed discomfort. There is no agreement banning criticism, but losing the sponsor reduces services for users. How should the Management Committee set the sponsorship method between the need to protect funding and independent judgment?

Who decidesFictional Public Institution Management Committee

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

    Keep the present funding and judge case by case

    Protects the funding for the service, but anticipating the patron's reaction may keep influencing judgment.

  2. Option 2

    Convert the donation into an unconditional joint fund

    Separates the donation from case-by-case judgment, but there is no way to know whether the patron will agree to the new approach.

  3. Option 3

    Shrink operations and switch to independent funding

    Reduces the direct link between criticism and funding, but users bear the cost of a shrunken service first.

The situation as it stands

The reconstructed body is run on one patron's continuing contributions, and its users are grateful for that help. Decision deadline: within 60 days, before the new donor agreement.

Reconstruction of the past as of 1949-11-26 · A public body run on a patron's goodwill reviews criticism of that patron. A fictional matter newly built from the principles of documents of the time. The organizations, people, figures, and events that appear are not records of real Decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The reconstructed body is run on one patron's continuing contributions, and its users are grateful for that help.
  2. Premise 2A public meeting that criticizes the patron has applied to use the body's space, and the patron has expressed discomfort.
  3. Premise 3Losing the donation would cut the services that can be offered right away, but the agreement contains no explicit condition barring criticism.

Where it holdsAudit, dependence on funding, freedom of criticism

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Records of donations actually influencing judgment
  2. Unknown 2The minimum service that can be sustained without funding
  3. Unknown 3The time needed to gather other funding

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the "records of donations actually influencing judgment," and re-judge when new confirmation changes the tradeoffs among the options.
  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the "minimum service that can be sustained without funding," and re-judge when new confirmation changes the tradeoffs among the options.
  • Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the "time needed to gather other funding," and re-judge when new confirmation changes the tradeoffs among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

The patron stated no conditions but delayed the next contribution after the critical meeting.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

Users said they would gather small contributions, but these fell short of covering some service costs.

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

Which is the basis of representation: expertise, majority, or random selection?

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-DEMOCRACY-37 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
db9bbbc08658ffd45fabe4c5d4ccb44f7b5f1ddcb58b63935e95ac9db020ef8a
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com