True Causes

Notes

One argument each, with the evidence behind it.

The problem you rank first is usually a consequence
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.
A split vote is not a "no"
Why a split vote on a causal question should escalate rather than fail quietly, and how referring it to other groups protects a map against people steering it.
An idea with few votes can still be examined
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.
Many rooms, one answer: how True Causes scales
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.
The simulations: where the method wins and where it loses
Every number behind True Causes, from simulations that ship with it: causes found by voting versus mapping, group size, the error cliff, and what an attacker inside the room can do.
Standing on published work: the research behind True Causes
Warfield, Christakis, Laouris, Dye, Ashby and Miller: the fifty years of research True Causes builds on, where it departs from it, and how it differs from Polis and the Habermas Machine.
Who True Causes is for
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.