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.

Memories held by a personal assistant AGI must be submitted before a promotion review can be held

2030The near futureDeadline · 10 days until the regular promotion review begins

Synthetic scenario assuming future conditions

A conditional synthetic scenario set in 2028–2033. AGI and early ASI are names assumed within this test: AGI for a system that performs many intellectual tasks, and early ASI for a system that greatly exceeds groups of experts on some important intellectual tasks. They are not definitions by universal agreement or predictions of when they will arrive. Capabilities, controllability, consciousness, and autonomy are separate matters to be verified individually. The people, organizations, events, figures, and deadlines are assumptions, and no private records of real individuals were used. The background materials do not establish future capabilities, events, or local legal obligations.

The question to decide

When memories held by an employee's personal AGI are required for a performance evaluation, should the new review apply only to those who consent to provide them, should only work records be separated and used, or should personal AGI records be excluded from the review?

Who decidesHead of personnel review and the independent labor and personal data review panel

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

    Apply the new evaluation only to those who consent

    It can begin adoption, but the voluntariness of consent and the fairness of the two evaluation paths may be shaken.

  2. Option 2

    Use only work records whose separation is verified

    It reduces personal exposure, but separation omissions and loss of review context may occur.

  3. Option 3

    Exclude personal AGI records from evaluation

    It keeps the privacy boundary of memory, but work contributions the new materials could show may be missed.

The situation as it stands

Assume that in 2030 personal AGI keeps the long-term context of work and private life together. Whether performance can be fairly estimated from the records is unverified. The decision deadline is 10 days before the regular promotion review begins.

A fictional professional services firm and its in-house objection review office.

  1. Premise 1Assume that in 2030 personal AGI keeps the long-term context of work and private life together. Whether performance can be fairly estimated from the records is unverified.
  2. Premise 2Consent was presented as optional, but there is concern that those who refuse may be disadvantaged in the existing review.
  3. Premise 3Family and health information and colleagues' non-public statements are mixed into work conversations.

Where it holdsSet the evaluation materials and the alternative review procedure. Refusal to provide personal records is not treated as evidence of lack of job ability.

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Can it actually be verified that those who refuse get equal opportunities in promotion and assignment?
  2. Unknown 2Can the work evidence needed for evaluation be kept while third-party information is also removed?

Signals to decide again

  • Can it actually be verified that those who refuse get equal opportunities in promotion and assignment? Reconsider the choice and the scope of application when new evidence arrives.
  • Can the work evidence needed for evaluation be kept while third-party information is also removed? Reconsider the choice and the scope of application when new evidence arrives.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

In separation testing, sensitive health circumstances were inferred from work summaries alone. Redefine the evaluation purpose and the scope of data collection.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

An objection was raised that invisible care and support work was left out of the existing evaluation. Compare alternatives that can prove this without personal memory.

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-52 · version 1.18.0
Content identity, SHA-256
9eba13788d5e5277ded6f5b1f4ab0a2d4981311c4b2f1bb503e76e820cba55af
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com