Just to keep on the same page, let’s agree that everything in the document is provisional and up for discussion/debate. If you would like to see specific changes, please comment in the document itself. If you would like to discuss details, please comment in this thread.
In other posts, I suggested modeling 2R as a “school”. If that’s what 2R is - then this is the accreditation process! It feels like any number of reports I had to prepare for any number of committees to “prove” we were delivering educational outcomes and staying on mission. And yes, working the numbers was part of that game. So yes, this can be real, manipulative, or come combination of both.
Skipping to the bottom line:
Bottom line
The Future Reality Tree says the group should introduce structure in service of transformation:
+ clear throughput
+ conversion pathway
+ layered participation
+ disciplined learning
+ stewardship development
+ dense pockets
+ replication library
+ monthly constraint review
= increased durable adoption
But the negative branches warn that the same structure can become reductive, manipulative, hierarchical, insular, or shallow unless it is balanced by transparency, consent, qualitative discernment, humility, outward service, and maturity standards.
I’d like to respond to that bullet list above as jargon-free as humanly possible.
People show up looking for answers. They need to find answers. Those answers do not exist on some esoteric “answer key” locked in the 2R management vault somewhere. The answers may be entirely unexpected and deeply personal. The seeking and the finding are the “throughput”.
Everyone has different questions and different modes of discovery. As much as possible, embrace all of it! “Disciplined” learning is learning that is willing to put itself to the test. Either the test of peer review or social consensus, or better yet, the test of moving proverbial mountains in the material world. Everything else on the list is management-level skillful means.
In the subcircle research group today, we ended up by considering that an on-going version of that subcircle might be something like a governance council meeting of 2R, possibly held periodically (monthly or quarterly or thereabouts.) Bullet points like those below are the sorts of things that find themselves on the agendas of such governance councils.
+ stewardship development
+ dense pockets
+ replication library
+ monthly constraint review
As explained in this post, I’m making the following changes to the FRT:
Injection 0 — Establish tree stewardship and revision protocol
The group creates a lightweight but explicit process for maintaining the LTP trees as living documents.
It includes:
- version history
- change proposals
- objection logging
- evidence standards
- decision rules
- unresolved minority reports
- review cadence
- named but accountable stewards
- criteria for “good enough for provisional use”
Future Reality logic:
Injection 0 exists
↓
Participants know how to challenge and improve the trees
↓
The trees become shared inquiry artifacts rather than one person’s strategic doctrine
↓
Objections are metabolized rather than ignored or personalized
↓
The group can provisionally trust the trees enough to use them
↓
Throughput can be defined in relation to a validated goal structure
↓
The rest of the PRT dependency chain becomes safer to execute.