Open questions

18 published items with open questions, grouped by the kind of work they need. An item can be accepted and still have work left on it.

Find out what happens 1

Check the causal claims in a specific situation.Retain the wider-harm check; examine alternative explanations and missing conditions.Connection“Institutions prioritise short-term predictability and fixed targets over responses from the wider system.” contributes to “An intervention can meet its target while causing unintended harm elsewhere.”What stands in the way?

Other unfinished reasoning 18

Choose whose shared conditions and which setting the goal concerns.Establish the willing group, situation and scope; no host is yet agreed.GoalPeople flourish together while retaining autonomy and personal boundaries.What are we trying to achieve?Separate evidence for coupling from claims about what constitutes a mind.Retain the distinction between empirical coupling, contested constitution and philosophical participation; use the glossary and bibliography to improve source tracing without claiming independent verification.Draws on Margeret Heath (document)GoalPeople flourish together while retaining autonomy and personal boundaries.What are we trying to achieve?Test whether repair is necessary for the bounded goal.Review all twelve proposed necessity links, including autonomy, company and solitude, feedback, governance and repair.Connection“People can notice strain and repair their shared rhythms.” is needed for “People in a willing, bounded community can flourish through being-becoming with the world while retaining autonomy and personal boundaries.”What are we trying to achieve?Test individual optimisation as the core-policy hypothesis.Test whether individual optimisation is a useful core-policy hypothesis rather than an imposed explanation.CauseRegulation and wellbeing are treated as individual optimisation problems.What stands in the way?Ground the candidate problems and connections in one setting.Obtain concrete observations of isolation, unrepaired rupture, brittleness and agency loss from the same setting; examine all proposed contributory links.ProblemPeople can become isolated and blamed for difficulties shaped by their surroundings.What stands in the way?Distinguish the cited smart-home proposal from the phones-and-feeds extension.Retain Heath's extension to phones and feeds as her synthesis, and test the new mediating shaping step.Connection“External systems increasingly shape people's attention and choices.” contributes to “People’s capacity to choose and learn can be narrowed.”What stands in the way?Test whether adequate safety requires imposed control.Challenge the assumption that sufficient safety requires imposed individual control; distinguish reliable safeguards from rigid control.Connection“Impose standardised individual regulation without participant control.” is needed for “People need sufficient stability and protection from overwhelm.”Where do needs pull two ways?Check whether the positions conflict over the same decisions.Check whether the two positions conflict over the same decisions and whether participatory safeguards can meet both needs.Connection“Impose standardised individual regulation without participant control.” conflicts with “Let the affected people collectively shape and revise how regulation is organised.”Where do needs pull two ways?Establish conflicts, prerequisites and actions with a willing group.Review the newly reconstructed conflict, readiness dependencies and action logic; drafting them does not resolve this work.ChangeOffer shared rhythms of rest and meeting that participants can adapt or leave.What will we change?Identify actual participants and how they would judge benefit and harm.Assess support, agency, learning and repair alongside harmful effects; calm or compliance alone is not evidence of benefit.Predicted effectShared settling may help some participants feel more able to be with others.What will we change?Check whether declining and raising harm are possible in practice.Test whether withdrawal and protected solitude work without penalty and whether dysregulation or pressure persists.Possible harmA shared practice may create pressure or make some participants feel less safe.What will we change?Check whether consent arrangements actually prevent pressure.Keep consent's protective effect unverified; stated rules may not prevent pressure.Connection“Agree how people can decline participation, raise harm and seek repair before trying a shared practice.” is meant to prevent “A shared practice may create pressure to appear calm or make some participants feel less safe.”What will we change?Check whether assessing a tool changes choices and control.Test whether visibility and control produce meaningful choice, including authority to alter or stop the tool.Connection“People can see and change how the selected tool shapes their attention and routines.” contributes to “People retain meaningful choices and agency over how tools regulate them.”What will we change?Test whether the proposed safeguards prevent harm.Assess surveillance risks, actual privacy, override and accountability; do not treat safeguards as guarantees.Connection“Limit data collection and provide privacy protection, override and accountability for the selected tool.” is meant to prevent “Adaptive tools may expose personal information or enable surveillance.”What will we change?Confirm the host's obstacles and readiness dependencies.Confirm which candidate obstacles exist and which readiness dependencies hold for the willing host; clarify resources and scope.ObjectiveThe group can judge and revise a practice and a tool's effects.What has to happen first?Establish who can change or stop the selected tool.Establish who can alter the chosen tool and whether meaningful override and reversibility are feasible.StepThe selected tool is visible, contestable and reversible.What has to happen first?Replace illustrative conditions with the host's account.Replace illustrative current conditions with the host group's account and test missing supporting conditions.ActionMap the relationships, tools and routines that regulate people.Who does what?Agree owners, feedback providers and observation arrangements.Agree action owners, relevant feedback providers and how benefits, harms and surprises will be observed before any trial is called ready.ActionAsk what helped, harmed or surprised people, then revise or stop.Who does what?

These come from the commons' own record of unfinished reasoning, and from disputed items. No deadline, owner or priority is shown because none is recorded.