THE QUESTION
Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
Sealed 12 days ago: this room no longer knows who sat in it; only its steward is still named. What it concluded stays.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 6 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
2 groups of claims influence each other in a circle
↺ The metric is claims processed → Guidance was stated more confidently than the
↺ The quiet revision is not an event, so it is n → Being wrong in public costs an institution mor → We cover the row about the change, never the c → There is no news hook for 'the advice cha
A circle can be a real finding — a cycle that feeds itself — or a link whose direction was never really settled. The map treats the group as one node, so nothing inside it is a root on its own. If it is the second, the pair is worth putting back to the room.Score the roots first
why
The method's own practice, before any action is proposed: each root cause is scored 1–5 on how feasible it is to address, how much impact addressing it would have, and how likely it is to resolve by itself with no intervention. Priority goes to roots with high impact, high feasibility and low likelihood of fixing themselves — priority = impact + feasibility − likelihood. Scores are averaged across the group and shown with how many scored.
1 = low, 5 = high. Your own scores; the group's averages beside them.
| root cause | feasible | impact | fixes itself | priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field | – | – | – | – |
| We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them | – | – | – | – |
| Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric | – | – | – | – |
| Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour | – | – | – | – |
| Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim | – | – | – | – |
| We label the claim and cannot label the confidence | – | – | – | – |
Would each action move each root cause?
Down the side: the actions people proposed. Across the top: the root causes the map found. Every square is one vote on one question — would this action significantly reduce that cause? One side has to reach 75% of the votes cast to settle it; short of that the square stays split. Each square shows how its votes fell — yes / worse / no — and a square is settled when one of those reaches three quarters of them.
why
Answered at 75% of votes cast, like every other question here. Split means people voted and neither side reached that bar — it is a result, not a queue, and it stays split until enough people change their minds. A square nobody settles stays undecided; it never turns into a no. Judging each pair on its own is what stops a popular action being credited with fixing things it does not touch.
| ACTION | ROOT CAUSES · does the action on the left reduce it? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field | We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them | Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric | Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour | Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim | We label the claim and cannot label the confidence | |
| Publish who funds each check, on the check discuss | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 0 worse / 24 no | ✗ no, it does not 4 yes / 0 worse / 25 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 0 worse / 4 no | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 27 no | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 0 worse / 26 no | not decided yet |
| Check processes, not only claims, and fund that separately discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 22 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | ⚑ the group split 9 yes / 0 worse / 20 no | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 0 worse / 26 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 23 yes / 0 worse / 6 no | ✗ no, it does not 4 yes / 0 worse / 25 no | not decided yet |
| A confidence label alongside the true/false verdict in focus ↑ · close ✕ | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 0 worse / 23 no | ⚑ the group split 8 yes / 0 worse / 21 no | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 0 worse / 26 no | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 0 worse / 24 no | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 0 worse / 23 no | not decided yet |
Highest leverage so far
Check processes, not only claims, and fund that separately reduces 2 of 6 root causes
Publish who funds each check, on the check reduces 1 of 6 root causes
THE ACTIONS ON THE MAP
Showing every action the room judged: it acts directly on 3 of the 6 root causes. It does not act directly on 3.
Read from the squares the room settled at Actions, nothing else. A root in green is reduced by at least one of the shown actions; in grey, none of them acts on it directly; a red outline means one of them makes it worse.
Share this view: as a picture · as a live map for another site
Each number on the map marks a root cause that action reduces.
① Publish who funds each check, on the check
② Check processes, not only claims, and fund that separately
③ A confidence label alongside the true/false verdict
FROM ACTIONS TO A PLAN
The grid judged each action on its own. A plan is a set of them the room would carry out together.
Members put plans together from the actions that reduce a root cause, and the room compares the plans two at a time, at three quarters of the votes cast, as it judged everything else. Each plan shows which root causes it acts on directly, which it does not, and which it makes worse.
The steward can open a plan comparison.
What we expect to follow
Predictions about the actions: what each should change, how to measure it, and when to check. On the date, someone who was in the room writes what actually happened beside it.
why
A map says which actions move which causes. It does not say whether anyone did them, or whether anything changed. An entry here is a prediction with a date and something to measure, written after the map settled. When the date comes, what actually happened is written beside it and the prediction stays as it was: a wrong one is the useful kind. Nobody voted on any of this and it changes nothing the room found.
due 24 Mar 2027
actionCheck processes, not only claims, and fund that separately
we expecthow a number was produced is examined, not only whether it is right
measured byprocess checks published per month
guessesthe room: 3 (median of 15, spread 0 to 8)