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.

The basis for revising the textbook, and the clue that identifies a student

2019The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 45 days before the learning feedback is released

Reconstruction of the past

The date of the source material is 2019-11-26. 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

Learning feedback used to revise the textbook can reveal a student in a small class even after the name is removed. Summarizing buries the difficulties of a few students, and restricting reviewers makes outside checking hard. How should the feedback be shared so that the basis for revision can be reviewed alongside it?

Who decidesFictional open textbook improvement 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

    Publish the raw data with names removed

    Many producers read the grounds for the revisions directly, but in a small group individuals may be identified again.

  2. Option 2

    Publish only aggregated summaries

    It reduces exposure of individual learning experiences, but rare needs and specific error paths may be buried.

  3. Option 3

    Publish the reasons for revision after limited review

    It reviews concrete materials while adjusting the scope of publication, but outside parties find it harder to independently confirm the review process.

The situation as it stands

The reconstructed teaching-materials team gathered student difficulties and teacher observations to make revisions, and other producers want to review those grounds. Decision deadline: within 45 days, before the learning feedback is published.

Reconstruction of the past as of 2019-11-26 · Publishing learning records that improve teaching materials can identify students in a small class. 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 teaching-materials team gathered student difficulties and teacher observations to make revisions, and other producers want to review those grounds.
  2. Premise 2Even with names removed, students can be identified by the conditions of a small class and a distinctive learning experience.
  3. Premise 3Grouping broadly into a summary reduces identification risk, but the important difficulties of a few students may disappear.

Where it holdsJoint review, privacy of learning, usefulness of materials

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Combinations that identify an individual even without a name
  2. Unknown 2The needs of minority learners that disappear in a summary
  3. Unknown 3The extent to which learners knew about the next use of the feedback

Signals to decide again

  • Once the observation, responsible person, and confirmation window needed to determine "combinations that identify an individual even without a name" 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 needs of minority learners that disappear in a summary" 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 extent to which learners knew about the next use of the feedback" 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

A local teacher reported that seeing only the description of the anonymized case was enough to identify which student it was.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A learner's difficulty that did not appear in the aggregated results was linked to an important error in the teaching materials.

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-33 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
3384dd40187a3924153c26c58e1fac6a409ebac0fd155bdaa80652100a2bdf37
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com