AC9.4 · learner packet

Deciding
without rulers.

Mosaic Commons case file and five records for matching a decision process to its stakes.

No method wins in advance.

Every lab decision is fictional and non-binding. Compare what each process protects and risks. Speaking is never the only route to influence, and disagreement is not a defect in a person.

Learner
Group code or independent route
Start date

Final portfolio

Decision brief and protocol comparison Complete decision minutes and mandate Protected minority report Recommendation and revision note

Fictional case · Weeks 1–6

Mosaic Commons

A member-run learning and repair space must decide whether to convert its only quiet room into a tool library for a six-month trial.

Current useQuiet room

Open whenever the commons is open. Used for sensory breaks, confidential support calls, prayer, reading, and focused work.

ProposalTool library

Install lockable storage and staffed lending hours. Keep a screened quiet corner, but the room will no longer be silent.

Resources$2,400 · 14 days

A grant expires in two weeks. Shelving can be removed, but $900 in installation labour is not recoverable.

Ari · access steward

Six regular members rely on predictable low-sensory space. Two send written input but cannot attend the meeting.

Bo · repair volunteer

Thirty-eight requested tools last season. People currently borrow personal tools without a reliable record or safety check.

Cam · finance keeper

The grant cannot pay rent or off-site storage. The next full meeting after the deadline is five weeks away.

Dee · maintenance volunteer

A lending desk adds about six weekly labour hours. No schedule or responsibility agreement exists yet.

Fixed initial proposal · version 1

Mosaic Commons will convert the quiet room into a staffed tool library for six months, retaining a screened quiet corner. The $2,400 grant funds removable storage and installation. A volunteer group will write hours and lending rules after approval.

No real decisionSame version starts every labWritten input countsRecord no-decision results

What the case does not settle

Who legitimately decides and who must be consulted.
Whether access is a floor, a negotiable interest, or outside the proposal’s scope.
Who carries implementation and whether they consented to the work.
Which protocol fits the deadline, reversible parts, sunk cost, and unequal exit costs.

Tool 01 · Week 1

Decision scope and stakes

Define the decision before choosing a rule. A high score is a prompt for judgment, not an automatic protocol.

Exact question this group has legitimate authority to decide

People / relationshipDecideAdviseAffectedImplementInfluence route

Information and access floorWhat stays autonomous or undecided

Deadline and cost of delayCondition requiring no decision yet

Tool 02 · Week 2

Role and informal-power ledger

Formal equality does not remove differences in time, access, relationships, information, confidence, or control of resources.

Power or taskWho has it now?How is it visible?Limit / rotation / recall

Frames agenda

Drafts proposal

Controls information

Facilitates / summarizes

Provides access / care

Implements / maintains

Role rotation

FacilitatorTimekeeperAccess advocateMinute keeperProcess observer

Shadow decision or conversation outside the processWho can challenge it, how, and with what information

Tool 03 · Weeks 3–4

Protocol comparison matrix

Begin every lab with proposal version 1. Record what happened; do not repair a protocol’s result after the fact.

Full consensus

Seek a proposal everyone can support or live with. Record concerns, stand-asides, blocks, and no decision.

Consent

Proceed when no reasoned objection tied to the agreed aim remains. Integrate objections into the proposal.

Vote

Use a declared majority or supermajority threshold after equal input. Preserve abstentions and the losing position.

Bounded delegation

Give a temporary group a written scope, reporting duty, ratification rule, and recall path.

Autonomous action

Separate independent choice from shared constraints; check externalities and unequal ability to exit.

ProtocolResult / timeWhose input changed it?Dissent pathFailure or tradeoff

Consensus

Consent

Vote

Delegation

Autonomy

Comparison claim supported by a specific moment in the records

Tool 04 · Weeks 4 and 6

Decision minutes and mandate

A person who was absent should be able to understand, implement, question, review, and undo the decision.

Date / sessionProtocol and exact threshold

Participants, absences, and affected people not presentRoles and participation routes used

Proposal versions: exact wording and reason for each change

Final result or explicit no-decision

Threshold met Threshold not met Process stopped Scope divided

ActionWhoBy whenSupport / resource

Temporary mandate, if any

Scope and limitsReporting and ratificationDuration and review dateRecall actor, trigger, and steps

Dissent attached to this recordUndo path and change-notice route

Tool 05 · Weeks 5–6

Minority report and revision

Dissent remains part of the institutional memory even when a decision proceeds.

Protected recordStrongest unresolved position, stated without caricature

Reasons and evidencePeople, access, work, or resources affected

Safeguard or alternative soughtConditions for review or reconsideration

What dissenters are and are not asked to do

Stress condition testedObserved failure or pressureSafeguard tried and its tradeoff

Protocol recommendation

Primary protocol and why it fits these stakesFallback, trigger, and who may switchClosest alternative and why notReview evidence and remaining risk

Substantive revision after auditEvidence, reason, and tradeoff

Final review

Scope and affected people are explicit. Silence was not counted as agreement. Informal power and implementation work are visible. Dissent, review, and undo stay with the decision. The recommendation changes when stakes change.

Decidingwithout rulers.