Many bodies—who is responsible for the care?
2217The deep futureDeadline · Within 6 months before the integrated care agreement
Civilisational assumption
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
Suppose institutions divide up the care of one person who uses multiple bodies. The effect of a change in one body on the whole experience is not yet fully understood. Dividing responsibility can leave gaps between institutions; concentrating it in one place concentrates data and authority; and leaving it with the stakeholder carries the burden of coordination. Who should be responsible for and coordinate this person's care?
Who decidesFictional multi-body care meeting
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…

The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The assumed stakeholder uses multiple bodies, and each body receives support from a different institution. Decision deadline: within 6 months, before the integrated care commitment.
A synthetic premise set in the future, 2217 · The care responsibility for one person using multiple bodies is split across institutions. The events, figures, technologies, and nature of the civilization are assumptions for the question, not predictions of what will come or observed facts.
- Premise 1The assumed stakeholder uses multiple bodies, and each body receives support from a different institution.
- Premise 2A change in any one body also affects the whole experience, but that connection is not well understood.
- Premise 3Person-centered overall coordination can help with alignment, but it gathers the data and authority of all institutions in one place.
Where it holdsAssumed multiple bodies · One experience · Care coordination
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Actual cross-effects between bodies
- Unknown 2The minimum data strictly necessary for overall coordination
- Unknown 3The scope of representation when the stakeholder finds coordination difficult
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will verify "actual cross-effects between bodies," and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs among the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will verify "the minimum data strictly necessary for overall coordination," and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs among the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will verify "the scope of representation when the stakeholder finds coordination difficult," and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Changes that each institution considered normal created new discomfort in overall daily life.
The stakeholder said they did not want the records of some bodies disclosed to other institutions.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
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.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.- WHO · Foresight Standing reference
- UNESCO · Ethics of Neurotechnology 2025
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-HEALTH-51· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
e75b1da8e5abcab25926bdedfa54fe2737175d0ccdc07f04f738ee47438d40f6- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON