A joint inquiry model that takes shape in a different order

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

1. Option 1

   Sequential agreement on common premises first

   Fix compatible premises first, then combine the partial propositions in order and check whole consistency. This shares the starting point of later reasoning, but reduces the exploration pathways that flow from the assumptions conceded at the outset.

2. Option 2

   Selection of whole model candidates

   Compare whole candidates that passed the consistency test in light of the joint purpose. This also judges the connections between distant propositions, but reviewing whole candidates takes time and narrows the range of assumptions that can be explored.

3. Option 3

   Keeping partial models and joint scope reduction

   Use jointly only the parts that connect without contradiction, and keep the rest as separate inquiry with different conditions. This preserves exploration diversity, but narrows the range of questions that can be answered jointly and reduces integrated explanatory power.

The situation as it stands

Until the composition method is set, joint reasoning for the next cycle cannot be assigned. The longer each inquiry group continues in separate work, the more results accumulate that must be reviewed again against the common model.

A non-biological shared inquiry space of Daul, a fictional intelligence joint inquiry council

1. Premise 1Synthetic premise: round-trippability of the same process is called p, preservation of intermediate states is called q, and the third item is their joint holding (p∧q). The judgments of the three inquiry groups are respectively (true, true, true), (true, false, false), and (false, true, false), which are each consistent, but the item-by-item majority values are (true, true, false). This is a combination that cannot simply be certified in the joint model.
2. Premise 2Synthetic premise: the joint purpose, participation authority, computational resources, and review time are fixed. There are several consistent whole candidates, and narrowing the shared scope of use also satisfies the minimum tasks, but there is no capacity to compare the follow-on inquiry of every candidate through to the end.
3. Premise 3Synthetic premise: the premise inquiry group seeks to preserve the continuity of the common starting point, the pathway inquiry group the connections that appear only at the whole, and the branching inquiry group the exploration of different assumptions. A combination fixed first accumulates into later reasoning, so changing it later requires redoing the joint work.

Where it holdsFinalize one way of composing the non-biological shared model for the next inquiry cycle, while maintaining translation, evidence validity, and participation authority.

What can be lost

• The premise inquiry group may lose the starting point of long-standing reasoning and continuity of work during the whole-candidate selection or scope-reduction process.
• The pathway inquiry group may be unable to carry out comparison questions that are possible only at the whole level, if it settles for partial agreements or joint scope reduction.
• The branching inquiry group may lose opportunities to explore from different assumptions if resources are concentrated on a common premise or a single whole candidate.

What is still unknown

1. Unknown 1It is unknown whether whole candidates not yet reviewed can accommodate more diverse assumptions while keeping the scope of the joint task.
2. Unknown 2How many new pathways the assumptions excluded at the outset will offer in the next inquiry has not yet emerged.
3. Unknown 3How large the review burden will grow when separately inquired results must be recombined as the joint scope of use is narrowed is undetermined.

Signals to decide again

• Each month the dependency steward checks whether the range of reasoning that would have to be reviewed if a finalized premise changed is growing, and reopens the decision if it exceeds the remaining joint review capacity.
• At each task assignment the task coordinator checks whether a question pushed outside the joint scope is still needed to perform the minimum tasks, and reopens the decision if the need becomes clear.
• At every candidate refresh the comparative review steward checks whether merely changing the order of review still yields different consistent wholes from the same judgment material, and reopens the decision if the reasons for concession change.