Use Cases
Founding-phase use case frame for the Planetary Integrity Foundation.
01
Purpose
Use cases define where the Planetary Integrity Foundation intends to apply open decision integrity methods.
The purpose is not to sell a generic AI product or to claim operational authority over public or private decisions. The purpose is to identify categories of material decisions where consequence visibility, evidence traceability, assumption review and accountable human judgment could reduce systemic blind spots.
Use cases are presented as founding-phase application frames, not validated deployments.
02
Selection criteria
A use case is relevant when a decision has consequences that exceed the normal field of view of the deciding institution.
Relevant use cases usually have at least four characteristics:
The more a decision creates systemic effects beyond its immediate owner, the more it may require a Decision Integrity Check.
- material consequences;
- cross-domain effects;
- uncertainty or contested assumptions;
- long-term or irreversible commitments;
- multiple affected stakeholders;
- public-interest implications;
- evidence fragmentation;
- accountability gaps.
03
Primary use case families
The first use case families are selected for institutional relevance, public-interest value and systemic consequence potential.
- 01
Infrastructure and territorial transformation
Major infrastructure decisions can reshape land, energy, mobility, water, logistics, communities and ecological systems for decades.
Relevant examples may include:
Decision integrity value:
- transport corridors;
- energy infrastructure;
- ports and logistics hubs;
- water infrastructure;
- urban expansion;
- industrial zones;
- strategic public works.
- reveal affected systems;
- surface indirect consequences;
- compare territorial trade-offs;
- preserve assumptions and uncertainty;
- support accountable review before irreversible commitment.
- 02
Climate adaptation and resilience
Climate adaptation decisions often require action under uncertainty, with consequences across finance, infrastructure, public safety, land use and social equity.
Relevant examples may include:
Decision integrity value:
- flood defense planning;
- heat-risk adaptation;
- drought and water allocation;
- wildfire exposure management;
- relocation or protection choices;
- resilience investment prioritization.
- make climate assumptions visible;
- compare time horizons;
- identify affected populations and systems;
- trace evidence and uncertainty;
- support transparent prioritization.
- 03
Energy transition and industrial policy
Energy transition decisions involve deep trade-offs across emissions, security, cost, industrial competitiveness, land use and social impact.
Relevant examples may include:
Decision integrity value:
- renewable infrastructure allocation;
- grid expansion;
- hydrogen infrastructure;
- carbon capture projects;
- industrial decarbonization pathways;
- strategic energy supply choices.
- expose trade-offs;
- trace model assumptions;
- identify dependencies;
- compare systemic effects;
- separate evidence from political or commercial pressure.
- 04
AI, automation and public systems
AI and automation decisions can affect rights, access, labor, public administration, institutional accountability and trust.
Relevant examples may include:
Decision integrity value:
- public-sector AI adoption;
- automated eligibility systems;
- predictive risk models;
- AI-supported planning;
- algorithmic resource allocation;
- critical workflow automation.
- make authority boundaries explicit;
- identify accountability gaps;
- surface bias and uncertainty;
- trace data and model limitations;
- preserve human review.
- 05
Finance, investment and systemic risk
Large financial and investment decisions can produce consequences across markets, territories, supply chains and public systems.
Relevant examples may include:
Decision integrity value:
- major infrastructure financing;
- climate-risk investment choices;
- sovereign or regional development programs;
- industrial subsidies;
- strategic capital allocation;
- transition finance portfolios.
- connect financial logic to real-world consequences;
- reveal externalities;
- trace assumptions;
- compare systemic exposure;
- support more accountable investment review.
- 06
Resource allocation and public priority setting
Public priority decisions often involve scarcity, competing needs and long-term consequences.
Relevant examples may include:
Decision integrity value:
- healthcare resource allocation;
- education investment;
- disaster-prevention budgets;
- housing policy;
- regional development priorities;
- environmental restoration programs.
- make trade-offs explicit;
- reveal who is affected;
- preserve the reasoning record;
- compare uncertainty;
- support transparent public-interest review.
04
Decision Integrity Check fit
A use case may be suitable for a Decision Integrity Check when the following questions matter:
The Decision Integrity Check is not a vote, a certification or an authorization. It is a structured consequence record designed to improve reviewability before commitment.
- What decision is being made?
- Who has authority?
- Which systems are affected?
- What assumptions are driving the decision?
- What evidence supports those assumptions?
- What uncertainty remains unresolved?
- What consequences may appear outside the decision owner’s immediate scope?
- Who should review the consequence record before action?
- What should remain traceable after the decision is made?
05
Use case maturity
At founding phase, use cases should be treated as application candidates.
A use case can evolve through four maturity levels.
- 01
Candidate
The use case is relevant in principle and may benefit from consequence visibility.
- 02
Framed
The decision type, actors, affected systems and review questions are defined.
- 03
Modeled
Evidence categories, assumptions, uncertainty and consequence pathways are structured.
- 04
Reviewed
The Decision Integrity Check format is tested through expert, institutional or advisory review.
No use case should be presented as adopted, certified, validated or operational unless that status is explicitly achieved and documented.
06
What is not claimed at this stage
At this founding phase, the Planetary Integrity Foundation does not claim that:
These use cases define where the initiative may apply its framework, not where it already has authority.
- these use cases have been deployed;
- public institutions have adopted the method;
- Decision Integrity Checks are certified assessments;
- Kairo is operational in these domains;
- partners have validated the use cases;
- scientific validation has been completed;
- legal, regulatory or institutional authority has been obtained;
- funding has been secured for implementation.
08
Contact
For serious institutional, advisory or technical conversations about possible use case framing, contact the founding team.