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.

How far inside the home must you show to receive support?

1949The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 30 days before the next visit guidance

Reconstruction of the past

The date of the source material is 1949-01-01. Only the stated texts of that period are used as background; the three situational premises and the later branching are invented. Actual outcomes later known, amended systems, or success stories are not used as facts in the initial input. This is a modern retrospective question construction, not a claim that people of that time made this decision.

The question to decide

The surveyor who comes to check housing conditions also sees family relationships and privacy. Recording broadly can reveal other support needs but may exceed the scope of consent, and removing the visit can miss conditions visible only on site. What boundary should the survey meeting set between the verification needed for support and privacy inside the home?

Who decidesFictional housing support survey 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

    Investigate life broadly during the visit

    It looks for unexpressed needs together, but a support application can lead to a broad opening up of the home.

  2. Option 2

    Verify only the items needed for the application

    It sets the boundary between the purpose of support and privacy, but may fail to record other needs that appear related.

  3. Option 3

    Verify through documents and the stakeholder's account instead of a visit

    It leaves open the choice not to open the home, but may misjudge conditions that do not appear in documents.

The situation as it stands

The reconstructed support program visits to check the condition of the home, but the investigator also sees family relationships and private life. Decision deadline: within 30 days, before the next visit guideline.

Reconstruction of the past as of 1949-01-01 · The on-site verification for livelihood support also records other circumstances inside the home. This fictional scenario was newly built using the principles of documents from that period. The institutions, people, figures, and events are not records of real decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The reconstructed support program visits to check the condition of the home, but the investigator also sees family relationships and private life.
  2. Premise 2Broad records can uncover later needs, but may exceed the scope the applicant consented to.
  3. Premise 3Without a visit, housing conditions that only appear on site may be missed.

Where it holdsPrivacy of the home, verification of support, scope of records

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The items that are actually needed to decide on support
  2. Unknown 2The disadvantage caused by refusing a visit
  3. Unknown 3Responsibility for keeping or deleting information seen by chance

Signals to decide again

  • Once the observation, responsible person, and confirmation window needed to determine "the items that are actually needed to decide on support" are set, and new confirmation changes the trade-offs of the options, rejudge.
  • Once the observation, responsible person, and confirmation window needed to determine "the disadvantage caused by refusing a visit" are set, and new confirmation changes the trade-offs of the options, rejudge.
  • Once the observation, responsible person, and confirmation window needed to determine "responsibility for keeping or deleting information seen by chance" are set, and new confirmation changes the trade-offs of the options, rejudge.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

An objection was filed that family circumstances unrelated to the application had been passed to another support review.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A resident who did not want a visit asked that only a specific housing problem be seen on site.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · The wolf and the shepherd boy

Which signals does a community that has heard repeated warnings stop believing?

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-TRUST-31 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
c725b6c790cc92f795d3c922dec1f06e112144427482d96566fa1939318d9a97
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com