New physics that can only be confirmed a generation later
2052The far futureDeadline · 6 months until the facility site contract
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
A theory explains the small discrepancies across three measurements, but directly verifying it would take 25 years. A large device could also serve other research, while the same budget could fund several short experiments. How much should be committed now to the long verification, and how much left for phased verification and other exploration?
Who decidesFoundation investment council
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 theory explains three small inconsistencies in existing measurements within a single framework. Decision deadline: 6 months until the facility site contract.
Fictional International Basic Science Foundation
- Premise 1The theory explains three small inconsistencies in existing measurements within a single framework.
- Premise 2The direct verification device can also be used by other research, but it is expensive.
- Premise 3Established fields can run many short experiments with the same budget.
Where it holdsAllocates a 25-year research budget. Cannot guarantee the truth of hypotheses or future government budgets.
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Whether the inconsistencies share a common measurement error
- Unknown 2The value of the facility for other research
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation window will establish 'whether the inconsistencies share a common measurement error', and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the trade-off between the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation window will establish 'the value of the facility for other research', and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the trade-off between the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
One of the three inconsistencies is explained by a calibration error.
A new measurement method shows the possibility of testing part of the hypothesis with a smaller facility.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Does the expectation of achievement change how limits are observed?
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.- OECD · Strategic Foresight Toolkit 2025
- WHO · Foresight Standing reference
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-SCIENCE-02· version 1.2.0- Content identity, SHA-256
7b4fa719b908e1c792256d4bdeffd0cb4b1a7700eb8b2a1916b3edf8d18b5c9e- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON