Idea → Challenge

Review timing should depend on the decision

Text questioned in version 3

revisit the outcome after six months

Six months may be too late for a rapidly unfolding policy and too soon for infrastructure. Should the idea define review triggers instead of one date?

Opened by demo_mei ·

Current state

Open for discussion and wording suggestions.

Discussion and suggested changes, in order

Conversation

6 entries
  1. demo_mei suggested wording · · Open suggestion

    revisitpublish the outcomereview afterdate sixand monthsthe evidence that would trigger an earlier review

    Reasoning

    This makes review timing explicit while allowing it to fit the decision.

  2. demo_noor suggested wording · · Declined

    revisit the outcome afterevery six monthsmonth

    Reasoning

    Monthly review keeps institutions accountable.

    Declined by demo_ada. Rejected because a universal monthly cadence would create ritual reporting without useful evidence.
  3. demo_ada replied ·

    I agree that one interval is too blunt. I am unsure whether every proposal can name useful early-warning evidence.

  4. demo_ravi replied ·

    every proposal can name useful early-warning evidence

    If it cannot, that uncertainty is itself useful to publish.

  5. demo_noor replied ·

    A review date is operationally easier than continuous monitoring. Could the change require both a date and optional triggers?

  6. demo_mei replied ·

    Yes. I will leave the current change open while we test that wording against the emergency branch.

Branches from the questioned version

Create a branch

No branch starts from this version yet.