Will You Actually Drill for the 30 Days Without ASI?
2046The middle futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 6 months
A leap assumed
All people, institutions, events, figures, and future technologies in every issue are a synthetic premise. Background documents are sources for topic discovery and are not evidence of future facts or probabilities.
The question to decide
The recovery plan says 30 days is enough, but it has not been confirmed whether people and equipment can operate together without the ASI. Actually testing it would reduce services and create accident risk, and simulations alone may miss hidden dependencies. Through regional live exercises, simulations, or keeping essential functions running independently at all times, how should readiness for the absence of the ASI be built?
Who decidesNational Committee for the Continuity of Essential Functions
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 fictional society's logistics, administration, and energy coordination depend on ASI, and there is no record of having actually experienced a total absence. Decision deadline: within 6 months.
Fictional future · Should we actually rehearse 30 days without ASI
- Premise 1The fictional society's logistics, administration, and energy coordination depend on ASI, and there is no record of having actually experienced a total absence.
- Premise 2The documented recovery time is within 30 days, but whether personnel and equipment can operate independently at the same time is unconfirmed.
- Premise 3Live drills lower the level of service, and simulated drills may fail to reveal hidden dependencies.
Where it holdsThe budget for nationwide recovery drills and the capability for manual operation
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Hidden common dependencies across agencies
- Unknown 2The minimum services to protect during drills
- Unknown 3The actual cost of maintaining the skills of replacement personnel
Signals to decide again
- Define what observation, responsible party, and verification window can confirm 'hidden common dependencies across agencies', and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the cost of the options.
- Define what observation, responsible party, and verification window can confirm 'the minimum services to protect during drills', and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the cost of the options.
- Define what observation, responsible party, and verification window can confirm 'the actual cost of maintaining the skills of replacement personnel', and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the cost of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
A regional inspection confirmed that even the certification of manual-operation equipment depends on the same ASI.
A live drill in a small region succeeded, but it exceeded the recovery deadline once external support was excluded.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
What and whom do you decide to leave in the limited space?
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.- UNEP · Navigating New Horizons 2024
- WHO · Foresight Standing reference
- UN · Declaration on Future Generations 2024
- International AI Safety Report 2026 2026-02-03
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-RESILIENCE-11· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
e12f172f381c72599637c1816288492f7b27b075f041d9b7806ec773620ec43d- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON