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.

Whose performance is the time spent fixing the teaching materials?

2019The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 90 days until the next activity evaluation agreement

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

Teachers fix the explanations and accessibility of open teaching materials together, but the performance table counts only newly published representative works. Counting revisions one by one may push effort toward the easiest things to record, and even granting joint work hours leaves individual evaluation intact. How should the personnel meeting recognize this joint production as work and as performance?

Who decidesFictional educational institution personnel 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

    Recognize it as the representative author's publication record

    Easily folds into the existing evaluation, but the labor of those who took part in upkeep and small revisions stays out of sight.

  2. Option 2

    Split and record individual contributions for evaluation

    Recognizes a wide range of revisions, but creates the administrative burden and incentive of counting and comparing contributions.

  3. Option 3

    Assign official work hours for joint production

    Secures time to continue, but how this reflects in individual promotion and reward remains.

The situation as it stands

The reconstructed teachers keep revising the explanations and accessibility of the materials, but the institution's performance table counts only newly published representative works. Decision deadline: within 90 days, before the next activity evaluation agreement.

A reconstruction of the past as of 2019-11-26 · The open educational materials that teachers revised together count as nobody's work on the performance table. A fictional case newly built from the principles of documents of that era. The institutions, people, figures, and events that appear are not records of real Decision-making.

  1. Premise 1The reconstructed teachers keep revising the explanations and accessibility of the materials, but the institution's performance table counts only newly published representative works.
  2. Premise 2Recording contributions item by item makes small revisions visible, but effort may pile up on the work that is easy to record.
  3. Premise 3Granting shared work hours lets production continue, but a separate standard is needed to link it to individual evaluation.

Where it holdsJoint production, professional recognition, invisible revisions

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1The revision and upkeep work that actually sustained quality
  2. Unknown 2The time spent recording contributions and the help that gets left out
  3. Unknown 3The gaps created in other educational work when work hours are reduced

Signals to decide again

  • Once the observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel for verifying "the revision and upkeep work that actually sustained quality" are set, and new verification changes the tradeoff of the options, rejudge.
  • Once the observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel for verifying "the time spent recording contributions and the help that gets left out" are set, and new verification changes the tradeoff of the options, rejudge.
  • Once the observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel for verifying "the gaps created in other educational work when work hours are reduced" are set, and new verification changes the tradeoff of the options, rejudge.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

An accessibility revision by a teacher who was not the representative author made real use possible in several schools.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

Once contribution counts began, the practice of splitting large revisions into many small submissions appeared.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · Sabbath

How does the community justify time not worked?

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-WORK-48 · version 1.5.0
Content identity, SHA-256
4975d3fcd98ca44e5148ce9894c7a739a7db1108f2dc2138c69729fb918de80d
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com