NOTES · FROM THE LANDING PAGE
The method is old and the mechanism is measured. What is new is that both now run at the size of a city rather than a seminar room. In practice that means: municipal government and public consultation · a large organisation whose problem crosses departments · a regulator weighing a system it did not design · a union or workforce whose knowledge is spread across shifts · a university or professional association · a serious incident review, where the question is what actually caused what · and the strategy work that usually ends in a consultant's ranked list.
A municipality. Not a consultation that produces a list of complaints ranked by how loudly they were made, but a map showing which of those complaints cause the others — with the disagreements published rather than smoothed away, and every connection traceable to how it was settled. A council that acts on the roots can say why it chose them, and a resident who disagrees can point at exactly which question they would have answered differently.
A workplace or a union. Fifteen people in a warehouse already know why the picking errors happen; the knowledge is distributed across shifts that never meet. This assembles it without anyone having to be in a room at the same time, and the reserved seats mean the night-shift observation that nobody upvoted still reaches the map if someone can point at the log.
A regulator or a profession. Where expertise is real but contested, the split between what is certified (empirical and causal claims, at 75% of votes cast) and what is only measured (importance, values) means a body can publish a causal account without pretending its priorities are facts.
A diaspora, or anyone the room excludes. The binding constraint on a hall is physical presence. Remove it and the people who could not travel, could not take the day off, or live three time zones away are in the same deliberation as everyone else — on one shared timer, with the same five stickers.
Two old devices, doing real work. Selection by lot: a deadlocked question goes to groups drawn at random from the rest, never to whoever volunteers. And equal standing: nothing here weights a vote by reputation, stake or seniority. Both are ancient. What is not is asynchrony — an assembly needed everyone in one place on one day, which is precisely the ceiling this removes.
Who counts is still a political choice. Every dialogue declares who may take part, and every map can be read against the variety of the room that produced it. The platform does not decide that question; it refuses to let it stay implicit.
What this does not do. It does not make decisions, allocate money, or bind anyone. It produces a causal account with its provenance attached, and an honest record of what a group could not agree on. Whether anyone acts on that remains a political question — which is the right place for it to remain.