The erroneous priorities effect: why the problem a group ranks highest is usually downstream, and what a simulated room shows about voting versus mapping causes.

Why a split vote on a causal question should escalate rather than fail quietly, and how referring it to other groups keeps any one group from steering the map.

Why a few shortlist places should be reserved for overlooked ideas backed by a source, and what that does for a room that ranks by feeling.

How thousands of people in small rooms reach one causal map: separate walls, shared questions, claims that travel, wordings merged only by their authors, and maps folded into one.

Every number behind True Causes, from simulations that ship with it: causes found by voting versus mapping, group size, the error cliff, and what a minority inside the room can and cannot do.

True Causes runs Structured Democratic Dialogue online: the fifty years of research it builds on (Warfield, Christakis, Laouris, Dye, Ashby, Miller), where it departs from it, and how it differs from Polis and the Habermas Machine.

Municipalities, large organisations, regulators, unions and workforces, universities, incident reviews: what a causal map with its disagreements kept is useful for, and what it does not do.

Seven problems the networked movements of 2011 left open (no program, symptoms over causes, informal leaders, fear, scale, contagion, sponsorship) and how a shared causal map faces each, including where it falls short.

21 language models, 14 personas, 120 causal links on housing: the persona changed which links were accepted by nothing measurable. Weaker models erred; capable ones agreed on most links and split consistently on the rest. What that means for panels of models.