Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Decision Processes

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 21:52
Show last authors
1 = Decision Processes =
2 == 1. Overview ==
3 This page describes the main types of decisions in FactHarbor and how they are escalated and documented.
4 == 2. Types of Decisions ==
5 * **Operational decisions** – day-to-day actions within an agreed budget or scope.
6 * **Strategic decisions** – long-term direction, major priorities, and partnerships.
7 * **Governance decisions** – changes to rules, roles, and organisational structures.
8 * **Exceptional decisions** – sensitive topics, serious conflicts, or rule violations.
9 == 2.5 Automation Boundary ==
10 **Critical distinction**: What AKEL decides vs. what humans decide.
11 === 2.5.1 Automated Decisions (AKEL) ===
12 **All content decisions are automated**:
13 * ✅ Claim verdicts and confidence scores
14 * ✅ Evidence assessment and relevance scoring
15 * ✅ Source track record scoring
16 * ✅ Risk tier classification
17 * ✅ Scenario extraction
18 * ✅ Publication decisions
19 * ✅ Contradiction detection
20 **Why automated?**
21 * Scale: Cannot manually process millions of claims
22 * Consistency: Algorithms apply rules uniformly
23 * Transparency: Code can be audited
24 * No bias: No human subjective judgment
25 * 24/7: Always available
26 **Human role**: Monitor aggregate metrics, identify systematic issues, improve algorithms.
27 === 2.5.2 Human Decisions ===
28 **System decisions (not content)**:
29 **Strategic** (General Assembly, 2/3 majority):
30 * Mission and values changes
31 * Risk tier policy definitions
32 * Major architectural changes
33 * Budget allocation >CHF 50,000
34 * Organizational structure
35 * Dissolution
36 **Tactical** (Governing Team, consent-based):
37 * Algorithm parameter adjustments (within policy)
38 * Policy updates and clarifications
39 * Infrastructure investments
40 * Hiring and role assignments
41 * Partnership agreements
42 * Community guidelines
43 **Operational** (Domain owners, autonomous):
44 * Technical Coordinator: AKEL optimizations, infrastructure changes
45 * Community Coordinator: Process improvements, documentation
46 * Moderators: Handling AKEL-flagged items
47 **Emergency** (Any team member, ratified later):
48 * Critical security vulnerabilities
49 * Legal compliance requirements
50 * Immediate safety threats
51 === 2.5.3 Principle: Fix the System, Not the Data ===
52 **When AKEL makes what appears to be a wrong decision**:
53 ❌ **Don't do this**:
54 * Manually override that specific verdict
55 * Adjust that source's score manually
56 * Create special case for that claim
57 ✅ **Do this instead**:
58 1. Investigate: Is this a systematic issue?
59 2. Analyze: What pattern caused this?
60 3. Improve: Change algorithm/policy systematically
61 4. Test: Validate on historical data
62 5. Deploy: Roll out improved system
63 6. Monitor: Check if metrics improve
64 **Example**:
65 * ❌ Bad: "AKEL rated this credible source too low. I'll manually boost it from 0.6 to 0.8."
66 * ✅ Good: "AKEL consistently under-rates peer-reviewed medical journals. Let's adjust the scoring algorithm to weight peer-review certification +15% for medical sources. Test on 1000 historical claims first."
67 == 3. Principles ==
68 * Decide at the lowest reasonable level.
69 * Involve the people who are affected.
70 * Record context, reasoning, and outcome for significant decisions.
71 * Keep escalation paths clear and predictable.
72 === 3.5 Decision Methods ===
73 Different types of decisions use different methods:
74 **Consent-Based Decision Making** (from Sociocracy 3.0):
75 * **Use for**: Algorithm changes, policy updates, process changes, role assignments
76 * **Process**: Proposal → Questions → Reactions → Amend → Consent round
77 * **Criteria**: No principled objections (not consensus)
78 * **See**: [[Consent-Based Decision Making>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.Consent-Based-Decision-Making]]
79 **Voting**:
80 * **Use for**: Strategic decisions, when consent fails
81 * **General Assembly**: 2/3 majority for major decisions
82 * **Governing Team**: Simple majority for tactical decisions
83 * **Emergency**: Simple majority, ratified later
84 **Autonomous**:
85 * **Use for**: Decisions within defined domain boundaries
86 * **Technical Coordinator**: Technical changes within domain
87 * **Community Coordinator**: Community process changes
88 * **Moderators**: Handling flagged items
89 * **Accountability**: Document decision, report to Governing Team quarterly
90 **RFC Process** (for technical/policy proposals):
91 * **Use for**: Significant system changes
92 * **Process**:
93 1. Create RFC (Request for Comments)
94 2. Community discussion (7-appropriate time period)
95 3. Revise based on feedback
96 4. Decision by appropriate authority (consent or voting)
97 5. Document and implement
98 == 4. Escalation Paths ==
99 Examples (to be adapted as the organisation grows):
100 * Content and modelling issues – Contributor → Contributor → Organisation Lead → Executive Lead → Governing Team.
101 * Behaviour and moderation issues – Moderator → Governance Steward → Executive Lead → Governing Team.
102 * Finance and compliance issues – Finance & Compliance Lead → Governance Steward → Governing Team.
103 == 5. Documentation ==
104 For significant decisions, at minimum record:
105 * date and time
106 * people involved and responsible role/body
107 * options considered
108 * reasoning and trade-offs
109 * final decision and expected impact
110 * follow-up actions and deadlines.
111 === 5.1 Decision Record Template ===
112 For formal decisions, use the following template:
113 **Decision Record: [Title/Topic]**
114 * **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
115 * **Decider(s):** [Names/Roles]
116 * **Context:** [What is the issue? What constraints exist?]
117 * **Options Considered:**
118 * Option A: ...
119 * Option B: ...
120 * **Decision:** [The chosen path]
121 * **Reasoning:** [Why this option? Trade-offs accepted?]
122 * **Consequences:** [Expected impact, risks, follow-up tasks]
123 == 6. Integration with Tools ==
124 Over time, decision logs may be maintained in dedicated tools (e.g. XWiki pages, issue trackers, or lightweight registers.
125 Whatever the tool, Governance must be able to reconstruct how important decisions were made.