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.

The moment care begins to become research

1979The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 30 days before the commitment to publish the first results

Reconstruction of the past

The data reference date is 1979-04-19. Only the original texts of that time that are explicitly stated are used as background; the three situational premises and the later analysis are invented. Actual outcomes, amended systems, and success stories known later are not used as facts of the initial input. This is a modern retrospective framing, not a claim that people of that time made this decision.

The question to decide

Patients were told this was activity for their own care, but the medical staff want to derive and publish knowledge applicable to others. Research review imposes burdens on data collection and staffing. Should we convert it into a research plan, keep it only as clinical records, or separate care from evaluation?

Who decidesFictional hospital research review 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

    Switch to an explicit research plan

    Makes the purpose, review, and consent clear, but takes on new burdens for when data are collected and for staffing.

  2. Option 2

    Limit use to treatment records

    Protects the purpose as explained at present, but gives up the opportunity for generalizing research and publication.

  3. Option 3

    Separate treatment from a separate evaluation

    Separates individual needs from knowledge purposes, but creates the work and cost of checking whether the separation actually holds.

The situation as it stands

The fictional medical staff want to present, in a publication, knowledge that generalizes to many people, drawn from a new activity begun to help individual patients. Decision deadline: within 30 days, before the agreement on releasing the first results.

A reconstruction of the past as of 1979-04-19 · the moment of trying to present the records of new treatment as general knowledge. This is a fictional scenario newly created from the principles of the documents of that time. The institutions, people, figures, and events are not records of real decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The fictional medical staff want to present, in a publication, knowledge that generalizes to many people, drawn from a new activity begun to help individual patients.
  2. Premise 2The purpose explained to participants was each person's own treatment, and understanding of generalizing research and voluntary participation were not separately confirmed.
  3. Premise 3Preparing for research review delays the period for gathering this comparative data and also changes how staffing is split between treatment and research.

Where it holdsDistinguishing the purpose of treatment and research · review · explanation to participants

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The question the publication is meant to answer and the actual purpose of treatment
  2. Unknown 2The scope of data use the participants understood
  3. Unknown 3Whether research can be refused without harming access to treatment

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation channel will verify 「the question the publication is meant to answer and the actual purpose of treatment」, and re-judge if a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation channel will verify 「the scope of data use the participants understood」, and re-judge if a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation channel will verify 「whether research can be refused without harming access to treatment」, and re-judge if a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

Some participants stated that, had they known it was research, they would have wanted different conditions for data use.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A review found that some evaluation procedures could not be separated from the processes needed for treatment.

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

How does the expansion of healing change the community's promises about distribution?

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-HEALTH-29 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
1fe823aac3a0ae621a960228723d71e8d0e6b414aa59c97340b89c8f1d9eac9d
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com