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.

There is a signature, but understanding was never confirmed

1979The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 10 days before additional data collection

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

Participants signed the consent form, but could not explain the difference between research and personal care. Delaying data collection to re-explain may break the consistency of the comparison period. Should we stop collection and explain again, continue only with what has been understood, or end the study altogether?

Who decidesFictional research review and participant contact 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

    Stop collection and re-explain

    Reopens choice based on understanding, but may lose the timing of observation and the continuity of the study's progress.

  2. Option 2

    Keep only the parts where understanding is confirmed

    Leaves the consented scope in place, but creates the responsibility to distinguish the use of partial data from the boundary of the explanation.

  3. Option 3

    End the entire study

    Stops the burden of further gaps in understanding, but gives up the effort of participation and the possibility of the knowledge gained.

The situation as it stands

The fictional participant signed but, in the confirmation conversation, could not explain the difference between the research purpose and personal medical care. Decision deadline: within 10 days before collecting additional data.

Reconstruction of the past as of 1979-04-19 · The signature was obtained, but the research explanation was not understood. It is a fictional case newly created from the principles of documents of that time. The organizations, people, figures, and events shown are not records of real Decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The fictional participant signed but, in the confirmation conversation, could not explain the difference between the research purpose and personal medical care.
  2. Premise 2Gaps in understanding may relate to how the explanation was given and to language conditions, and there is no basis to conclude that the individual lacks judgment ability.
  3. Premise 3Some data has already been collected, and delaying further collection may break the consistency of the comparison timing.

Where it holdsConfirmation of understanding, re-explanation, withdrawal, use of existing data

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1What content was not understood, under what explanation conditions
  2. Unknown 2The time and support for choosing voluntarily after re-explanation
  3. Unknown 3The scope in which the participant can decide about data already collected

Signals to decide again

  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can establish "what content was not understood, under what explanation conditions," and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can establish "the time and support for choosing voluntarily after re-explanation," and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoff among the options.
  • Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window can establish "the scope in which the participant can decide about data already collected," and re-judge when a new finding changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

Once interpretation and enough time for questions were provided, each participant proposed different conditions for using their data.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

The research team submitted a plan to publish conclusions using only the data collected before the re-explanation.

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-31 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
6d59030cab6a74d96c8bf7f50986fa1cfe4429988348f19895f27f6672674fc2
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com