Not enough money to save both the big experiment and the alternative theory
2100The far futureDeadline · Within 1 year until the next 10-year funding round
A leap assumed
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
The dominant theory explains many phenomena but still has few new predictions that discriminate it from other theories. Keeping every research group alive would prevent building the large joint experiment, and concentrating support could make alternative approaches disappear. How should the next 10 years of research funding be divided among the dominant theory, the research base for alternatives, and observations shared across many theories?
Who decidesFictional research foundation review 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 dominant theory explains many phenomena with one account, but its newly distinguishing predictions remain limited. Decision deadline: within 1 year, before the next 10 years of funding.
2100 Future synthetic scenario · Only one research program survives because its explanations are elegant. The events, figures, technologies, and nature of the civilization are assumptions for the question. They are not predictions of what is to come, nor observed facts.
- Premise 1The dominant theory explains many phenomena with one account, but its newly distinguishing predictions remain limited.
- Premise 2The other theory group is small, but it expects different results for specific observations.
- Premise 3If every group is kept alive, the large joint experiment cannot be built; if effort is concentrated, alternative techniques may disappear.
Where it holdsCompeting theories, observations, and resources of the research ecosystem
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Observations that actually separate the theories
- Unknown 2The cost of rebuilding after the alternative research base disappears
- Unknown 3Discrimination possible without the large experiment
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation window will verify “observations that actually separate the theories,” and reopen judgment if the new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation window will verify “the cost of rebuilding after the alternative research base disappears,” and reopen judgment if the new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible party, and confirmation window will verify “discrimination possible without the large experiment,” and reopen judgment if the new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
A design was proposed in which a small alternative experiment could produce results that distinguish it from the dominant theory.
It emerged that even shared observation equipment uses different calibration assumptions for each theory.
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-19· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
42e1deeecc666d5ded445e7f58b44e266abfe59ddc9edc46498f1194d1ea2331- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON