When a reputation ends across different times

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

1. Option 1

   Elapsed common calendar

   Effect ends at the same point in time at every exchange destination, making movement conditions predictable, but depending on activity speed a judgment either lingers too long or expires before outcomes are confirmed

2. Option 2

   Receiving community's activity cycle

   The destination secures time to verify cooperation outcomes, but the effect of the same evaluation differs by destination and moving to a slow community delays the new start

3. Option 3

   Change in related cooperation conditions

   Using whether the dependencies and modes of activity at the time of evaluation changed as the criterion reflects context, but disputes and review costs over the authority to recognize change persist

The situation as it stands

If the ending criteria cannot be set, the mutual recognition of reputation clause of the new exchange covenant does not take effect, so a moving group must repeat separate introductory activities at each destination

The Yeoul Time-Zone Exchange Federation, a fictional organization, and fictional communities operating at different activity speeds

1. Premise 1This is an independent long-term synthetic premise that assumes each community has the technology to operate at a different activity speed. An evaluation that one community treats as an old failure is, in another community, a judgment whose first cycle of cooperation has not even ended
2. Premise 2In this synthetic covenant, the general meeting sets only criteria for ending the admission-screening effect within the exchange network and cannot change each community's activity speed. Within the effective deadline on a common-calendar basis, the additional activity results of slow communities cannot be awaited
3. Premise 3Among the synthetic stakeholders, the moving group of the fast community argues that past evaluations remain even after sufficient change. Slow receiving communities worry about expiration before outcomes appear, and the evaluating community wants to control what counts as change

Where it holdsSet by covenant the criteria that end the admission-screening effect of past reputation between communities on different time scales

What can be lost

• A moving group can lose admission opportunities in another time zone because of past judgments it believes it has already outgrown
• A slow receiving community can see the effect of a judgment end before it can verify cooperation outcomes, leaving it to bear the cost of readjusting long-term activities
• An evaluating community can lose the authority to explain the meaning of past judgments, or be left responsible for reviewing changes over long periods

What is still unknown

1. Unknown 1Whether cooperation experience accumulated in a fast community counts as meaningful change in the long-term dependencies of a slow community cannot be known
2. Unknown 2Whether communities at different activity speeds can verify in the same way a judgment that the premises of the original evaluation have disappeared is unverified
3. Unknown 3Whether reputation whose official effect has ended keeps influencing admission choices through informal ties is unknown

Signals to decide again

• The federation's exchange statistics officer compares annually, on a common-calendar basis, the actual number of cooperation opportunities before expiration by time zone
• The covenant coordination officer reviews semiannually, on a common-calendar basis, cases in which communities disagreed over whether a change in conditions was recognized
• The right-to-move officer tallies quarterly, on a common-calendar basis, cases in which admission screening was delayed on the grounds of past reputation after the effect ended