artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

Decision Methods, Weights, and Route Portfolios Matrix

Status: candidate pre-production Content canon status: unset

| Method family | Governing question | Strength | Constitutional risk | |---|---|---|---| | Majority vote | Which option receives the most support? | Clear collective selection | Majority treated as complete legitimacy | | Supermajority | Is broader support required? | Higher agreement threshold | Entrenched status quo | | Consensus | Can all active participants support or live with the route? | Strong shared commitment | Apparent agreement treated as universal consent | | Consent gate | Is action permitted by required centers? | Preserves scoped authority | Consent burden assigned too broadly | | Weighted MCDA | Which route scores highest under stated criteria and weights? | Transparent multidimensional comparison | Weight laundering and false commensurability | | Outranking | Which routes remain defensible under thresholds and incomparability? | Preserves noncompensation | Thresholds hidden as technical facts | | Pareto analysis | Which represented objective gains without represented loss? | Reveals dominated options | Frontier mistaken for complete legitimacy | | Robust decision | Which route performs acceptably across uncertain futures? | Handles deep uncertainty | Present burden hidden by future robustness | | Negotiated agreement | Which exchange can relevant parties authorize? | Directly engages authority and tradeoff | Missing or coerced parties | | Delegated authority | Which authorized role should decide? | Efficient under bounded mandate | Mandate drift | | Lottery or rotation | How can equivalent claims share scarce opportunity? | Reduces strategic ranking | Unequal consequences ignored | | Route portfolio | Can several routes operate together? | Preserves plurality and learning | Complexity and burden shifted downward | | Reversible trial | Which route can generate evidence without premature closure? | Preserves revision | Trial burden becomes permanent |

Weight provenance

Every material criterion or weight should identify:

source
affected centers
authority
measurement
uncertainty
review
noncompensatory exclusions

Method-comparison rule

Where reasonable methods produce materially different routes, the public witness should preserve:

method
inputs
assumptions
result
protected-condition treatment
cost-bearer effect
reason for method selection

Portfolio test

A route portfolio should identify:

routes
allocation
common protected conditions
route-specific conditions
coordination burden
participant choice
exit
review

Governing principle

A decision rule is an instrument of governance, not an invisible law of the field.