Skip to content
Planetary Integrity Foundation Contact
Version 0.1 Founding-phase question frame

Questions

Ten founding questions for the Planetary Integrity Foundation.

01

Purpose

The Planetary Integrity Foundation begins with questions before it claims answers.

These questions define the intellectual field of the initiative: how major decisions should be examined before they produce irreversible systemic consequences.

They are not slogans, campaign messages or final doctrine. They are founding questions for advisors, contributors and institutions willing to improve the discipline of open decision integrity.

02

The ten questions

  1. 01

    1. What makes a decision planetary?

    Not every important decision is planetary. A decision becomes planetary when its consequences interact with systems beyond the immediate authority, territory or time horizon of the decision-maker.

  2. 02

    2. What should be visible before power becomes commitment?

    Major decisions often become irreversible before their systemic consequences are made visible. Decision integrity asks what evidence, assumptions, uncertainty and affected systems must be visible before commitment.

  3. 03

    3. Who is affected beyond the formal decision boundary?

    Institutions often define scope around their own authority. Consequences do not respect that boundary. A serious assessment must ask who and what is affected outside the formal frame.

  4. 04

    4. Which assumptions are carrying the decision?

    Every material decision depends on assumptions about future conditions, stakeholder behavior, technology, cost, climate, markets, institutions or risk. Those assumptions must be named before they can be challenged.

  5. 05

    5. What uncertainty remains unresolved?

    Uncertainty is not a weakness to hide. It is part of the decision record. The question is whether unresolved uncertainty is visible, reviewed and carried honestly into the final judgment.

  6. 06

    6. What consequences are displaced?

    Some decisions appear efficient because consequences are displaced across time, territory, population, ecology, supply chain, public finance or institutional responsibility.

  7. 07

    7. What cannot be delegated to AI?

    AI may connect evidence, surface patterns and support consequence visibility. It must not absorb moral, legal, democratic, scientific or institutional responsibility.

  8. 08

    8. What must remain reviewable after the decision?

    A decision record should preserve more than the final conclusion. It should preserve evidence, assumptions, uncertainty, dissent, review points and the reasoning path.

  9. 09

    9. What would make the assessment trustworthy?

    Trust does not come from institutional language alone. It requires traceability, independence, conflict control, reviewability, transparency about limits and accountable human authority.

  10. 10

    10. What should stop or slow a decision?

    Decision integrity matters only if it can reveal when a decision should be delayed, reframed, challenged or stopped because the consequence record is incomplete, distorted or unacceptable.

03

How these questions are used

The questions are intended to guide:

  • protocol development;
  • governance design;
  • Decision Integrity Check structure;
  • Kairo authority limits;
  • contributor review;
  • use case selection;
  • public communication;
  • institutional conversations.

04

What is not claimed at this stage

At this founding phase, these questions do not claim to be:

They are a public starting point for building a more rigorous decision integrity discipline.

  • final doctrine;
  • a completed methodology;
  • a certified assessment standard;
  • adopted by institutions;
  • scientifically validated;
  • legally authoritative;
  • a substitute for expert, democratic, legal or institutional judgment.

06

Contact

For serious institutional, advisory or technical conversations about these questions, contact the founding team.

Contact the Founding Team