163 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
163 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
# INTENT — decision-canon
|
|
|
|
## Mission
|
|
|
|
Establish a coherent, extensible **Decision Canon** that provides:
|
|
|
|
1. a shared language for thinking and talking about decisions,
|
|
2. a unified Decision Object capable of representing decisions across radically different levels of rigor and consequence,
|
|
3. a taxonomy of decision kinds, methods, authority modes, and effects,
|
|
4. a progressive formalization model that keeps simple decisions simple,
|
|
5. a machine-processable foundation for governed human, agentic, and hybrid decision systems,
|
|
6. a way to model policies and constitutional decisions as decisions whose effects shape future decision spaces,
|
|
7. and a closed-loop learning model connecting decisions to execution, outcomes, retrospectives, and policy evolution.
|
|
|
|
## Problem
|
|
|
|
Decision-related disciplines are fragmented.
|
|
|
|
Relevant bodies of work include:
|
|
|
|
- normative decision theory,
|
|
- Bayesian decision analysis,
|
|
- causal inference,
|
|
- multi-criteria decision analysis,
|
|
- operations research,
|
|
- robust optimization,
|
|
- game theory,
|
|
- behavioral decision theory,
|
|
- naturalistic decision making,
|
|
- complexity-oriented decision making,
|
|
- organizational decision rights,
|
|
- business rules and DMN,
|
|
- workflow systems,
|
|
- control theory,
|
|
- reinforcement learning,
|
|
- policy design,
|
|
- and governance.
|
|
|
|
Each contributes useful abstractions, but no single practical object model spans the whole lifecycle:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
situation
|
|
→ framing
|
|
→ evidence
|
|
→ alternatives
|
|
→ values
|
|
→ analysis
|
|
→ authority
|
|
→ commitment
|
|
→ execution
|
|
→ observation
|
|
→ learning
|
|
→ policy evolution
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The canon shall explore that missing connective layer.
|
|
|
|
## Core hypothesis
|
|
|
|
A **Decision Object** can serve as a first-class unit of agency.
|
|
|
|
It should record an authorized commitment made from a particular frame, knowledge state, and value system, together with intended effects and sufficient lineage to observe and learn from what follows.
|
|
|
|
The object must support progressive formalization:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
informal choice
|
|
→ recorded decision
|
|
→ structured decision
|
|
→ analyzed decision
|
|
→ governed decision
|
|
→ executable decision
|
|
→ policy decision
|
|
→ constitutional decision
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Key design principles
|
|
|
|
### One semantic object, progressive formality
|
|
|
|
A trivial choice must not require heavyweight structure.
|
|
|
|
A consequential policy decision must support deep analysis, explicit authority, evidence, machine-readable effects, and retrospective learning.
|
|
|
|
### Explicit incompleteness
|
|
|
|
Unknown, estimated, assumed, inferred, observed, and decided must remain distinguishable.
|
|
|
|
### Decision quality is not outcome quality
|
|
|
|
The decision record must preserve what was knowable at decision time so that outcomes do not rewrite history.
|
|
|
|
### Capability and authority are independent
|
|
|
|
The canon must distinguish:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
can
|
|
may
|
|
should
|
|
will
|
|
did
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Policies are decision effects
|
|
|
|
A policy decision changes the rules under which future decisions are made.
|
|
|
|
### Constitutional decisions alter decision-making itself
|
|
|
|
Constitutional decisions may change authority structures, policy creation rules, fundamental constraints, or mechanisms for delegation and escalation.
|
|
|
|
### Decisions form a graph
|
|
|
|
The canon should support explicit decision lineage such as:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
derived-from
|
|
implements
|
|
governed-by
|
|
delegated-by
|
|
authorized-by
|
|
triggered-by
|
|
depends-on
|
|
challenges
|
|
reviews
|
|
supersedes
|
|
revokes
|
|
exception-to
|
|
resulted-in
|
|
learned-from
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Intended uses
|
|
|
|
The canon should eventually support:
|
|
|
|
- architecture decision records,
|
|
- product and investment decisions,
|
|
- security decisions,
|
|
- autonomous-agent delegation,
|
|
- policy modelling,
|
|
- governance systems,
|
|
- approval and escalation systems,
|
|
- incident decision reconstruction,
|
|
- decision retrospectives,
|
|
- machine-executable decision services,
|
|
- organizational decision intelligence,
|
|
- and simulation of ecosystem evolution under different policies.
|
|
|
|
## Non-goals
|
|
|
|
The canon is not intended to:
|
|
|
|
- replace every existing decision-analysis method,
|
|
- impose quantitative analysis on all decisions,
|
|
- force all decisions into one universal workflow,
|
|
- collapse values, evidence, uncertainty, and authority into one scalar score,
|
|
- or treat policy as merely another business rule.
|
|
|
|
## Long-term ambition
|
|
|
|
Create a practical and formal foundation for **adaptive socio-technical decision systems** in which humans, agents, services, and institutions can make, delegate, execute, review, and evolve decisions while preserving authority lineage and epistemic context.
|