Principlev1

Structure consent-based decisions to require substantiated

Structure consent-based decisions to require substantiated objections (evidence of specific harm) rather than preferences, focusing discussion on genuine risks.

Why This Is a Principle

Derives from Illusion of Explanatory Depth (self-assessment unreliable until articulated), Externalization Exposes Hidden Structure (externalization exposes gaps), and Knowledge of cognitive biases does not reduce susceptibility (knowing biases doesn't reduce them). It's procedural design that forces explicit reasoning to overcome biases. Derived, not foundational.

Source Lessons

L-1689

Consent-based decision-making

Decisions proceed unless someone has a substantiated objection — faster than consensus, more inclusive than authority. Consent-based decision-making occupies the middle ground between two common extremes: consensus (everyone must agree) and authority (one person decides). In consent-based decision-making, a proposal proceeds unless someone presents a reasoned, substantiated objection — not a preference, not a concern, but an objection backed by evidence that the proposal would cause harm or move the organization backward. This approach produces decisions that are good enough for now and safe enough to try — enabling organizational velocity while maintaining collective intelligence.

Connections

Derived From (3)

AxiomIllusion of Explanatory Depth AxiomExternalization Exposes Hidden Structure AxiomKnowledge of cognitive biases does not reduce susceptibility

Back to Concepts