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.

Two people facing a single scholarship

2026NowDeadline · Within 12 days, before enrollment registration

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

One applicant cannot enroll without aid, and the other has partial alternative funding but has gained a rare research opportunity. Splitting the scholarship in half could leave both below the minimum they need. To whom, and how, should the foundation award the single full scholarship?

Who decidesFictional Private Scholarship Foundation Review Meeting

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

    Prioritize the applicant without alternative funding

    Opens an enrollment opportunity that would truly close, but may miss the growth of a rare research plan.

  2. Option 2

    Prioritize the research plan

    Concentrates on great learning potential, but closes enrollment for an applicant who already has few options.

  3. Option 3

    Split the amount and fund both

    Shares the opportunity between the two, but may fall below the minimum need so that neither plan is realized.

The situation as it stands

One applicant cannot enroll without support, while another has secured a rare research opportunity but has some alternative funding. Deadline for decision: within 12 days, before enrollment registration.

2026 synthetic scenario · One full scholarship is allocated between need and potential. The people, organizations, figures, and events are fictional.

  1. Premise 1One applicant cannot enroll without support, while another has secured a rare research opportunity but has some alternative funding.
  2. Premise 2If the scholarship is split in half, both may fall below the minimum funding they need.
  3. Premise 3The selection criteria specify only broad support for potential, with no ranking of need or plan.

Where it holdsThe recipients and continuation conditions of a limited scholarship

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The minimum funding needed to start each plan
  2. Unknown 2Whether the alternative funding is confirmed
  3. Unknown 3The costs of continuing study after the award

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can verify 「the minimum funding needed to start each plan」, and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can verify 「whether the alternative funding is confirmed」, and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can verify 「the costs of continuing study after the award」, and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

One university said it would further reduce part of the tuition to match a split scholarship.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A reply came that the start of the research opportunity could be postponed by one year.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · Socratic dialogue

How is getting a quick answer different from becoming able to ask questions?

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-EDUCATION-17 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
e37289aaa6ab7581404e47e3c4f78fe66c69016dd42f9695910f0bdeb57667c7
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com