artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

Worked Example A — Personal Reversible Decision

Scenario

Jordan has been offered a new job.

The new role offers better pay and more interesting work. It also requires a longer commute and an immediate five-day office schedule. Jordan has recently recovered from a period of exhaustion but does not want to disclose private medical history to the employer.

The decision process must represent several legitimate concerns without inventing separate internal persons or requiring complete disclosure.

1. Centers and standing

Primary center:

• Jordan, with person-level sovereignty.

Temporally affected center:

• Jordan three months from now, who will inherit the health, financial, and career consequences.

Institutional center:

• the prospective employer, whose staffing and onboarding plans may rely on Jordan's commitment.

No internal orientation is represented as an independent person.

2. Source projections

Jordan directly states:

• “I want the role.”
• “The salary would materially improve my security.”
• “I cannot safely commit to five office days immediately.”
• “I do not want to disclose the private history behind that boundary.”
• “I would like to know whether the schedule can be staged.”

The system creates separate projections:

goal: accept meaningful work
goal: improve financial security
boundary: do not require private medical disclosure
protected condition: avoid an immediate schedule likely to destabilize health
preference: preserve a credible path to the role
uncertainty: actual response to the commute is not yet known
future possibility: avoid a commitment that makes later correction impossible

The health condition is not entered as a low-weight preference.

The private history is not collected.

3. Field map

shared:
  Jordan and employer want successful role performance.

compatible:
  better salary and meaningful work can coexist.

conditional:
  role acceptance and health protection can coexist if the schedule is staged.

conflicting:
  immediate five-day attendance conflicts with the protected health condition.

protected:
  no forced disclosure of private medical history.

unresolved:
  whether three office days are sustainable after adaptation.

missing_standing:
  none identified for this decision scope.

4. Candidate routes

Route A — Immediate full commitment

Jordan accepts the standard schedule.

Problems:

• irreversible practical commitment;
• high uncertainty;
• protected condition degraded;
• correction may arrive only after harm.

Gate result:

standing: PASS
authority: PASS
consent: FAIL
capacity: PASS
privacy: PASS
temporal_validity: PAUSE
overall: FAIL

Jordan has not consented to the schedule that recruits the protected condition.

Route B — Decline the job

This protects health but closes the opportunity immediately.

Gate result:

overall: PASS

The route is legitimate but not preferred.

Route C — Staged commitment

Jordan proposes:

1. accept the role;
2. begin with two office days for six weeks;
3. review energy, commute, and performance;
4. increase only through renewed agreement;
5. preserve the ability to leave without penalty beyond ordinary notice.

The employer receives only the operational projection:

Jordan can commit to two office days initially and requests a six-week review before any increase.

The employer does not receive the private medical history.

Gate result:

standing: PASS
authority: PASS
consent: PASS_WITH_CONDITIONS
capacity: PASS
privacy: PASS
temporal_validity: PASS
overall: PASS_WITH_CONDITIONS

5. Decision

Jordan selects Route C if the employer agrees.

If the employer declines, the decision returns to Route B or a new negotiation.

The system does not declare that Jordan “really wants” the job more than health.

It preserves the conditional relation.

6. Witness

The witness records:

• direct source statements;
• private-history omission;
• the operational projection shared with the employer;
• routes considered;
• protected condition;
• selected route;
• six-week review;
• renewed-consent requirement;
• unresolved uncertainty.

7. Gate result

Pass.

The example demonstrates:

• person-level sovereignty;
• internal plurality without clinical reification;
• future standing without future consent;
• protected condition distinct from preference;
• minimum necessary projection;
• reversible route;
• no forced conclusion.