{
  "schema_version": "3.0.8",
  "id": "participation-process-comparison-rule-change-001",
  "version": "3.0.8",
  "last_reviewed_utc": "2026-06-20T17:20:17Z",
  "artifact_maturity": "reference",
  "comparison_title": "Five participation levels applied to one fictional rule-change context",
  "decision_context": "An AI-assisted community is considering a change to temporary visibility limits and appeal timing.",
  "comparison_rule": "A higher influence level is not automatically better or lawful. Use the level that matches the actual authority, stakes, capacity, and published mandate, and label it honestly.",
  "levels": [
    {
      "level": "information",
      "purpose": "Publish a decision that is already fixed and explain sources, effects, and correction paths.",
      "participant_influence": "Participants can understand and correct factual errors but cannot change the policy through this process.",
      "decision_owner": "Community operator",
      "evidence_required": [
        "notice",
        "source links",
        "effective date",
        "correction contact",
        "exit impact"
      ],
      "appropriate_when": "A legally or operationally fixed notice must be communicated without pretending it is open.",
      "not_appropriate_when": "The organization is still deciding but withholds that fact.",
      "example_outcome": "The organization publishes the new appeal address and accepts factual corrections.",
      "authority_boundary": "Publication does not imply consent or participation."
    },
    {
      "level": "consultation",
      "purpose": "Receive evidence and proposals before the owner decides.",
      "participant_influence": "Participants can affect the owner’s reasoning but do not hold the final decision.",
      "decision_owner": "Governance working group",
      "evidence_required": [
        "open questions",
        "channels",
        "known access gaps",
        "contribution dispositions",
        "final response"
      ],
      "appropriate_when": "The owner retains authority but can still change defined parts of the proposal.",
      "not_appropriate_when": "Comments are collected after every consequential choice is fixed.",
      "example_outcome": "The owner shortens the temporary limit after reviewing evidence.",
      "authority_boundary": "Consultation is advisory and must not be called co-decision."
    },
    {
      "level": "deliberation",
      "purpose": "Allow affected people and decision owners to examine reasons, trade-offs, and revised options together.",
      "participant_influence": "Participants can revise proposals and preserve unresolved disagreement; final authority remains declared.",
      "decision_owner": "Governance working group after facilitated deliberation",
      "evidence_required": [
        "agenda",
        "source packet",
        "facilitation rules",
        "revised options",
        "minority report",
        "owner response"
      ],
      "appropriate_when": "Trade-offs benefit from reason exchange and the process can support accessible facilitation.",
      "not_appropriate_when": "The organization lacks time, access support, or response capacity and would only stage a discussion.",
      "example_outcome": "Two alternatives are combined, while a minority objection remains published.",
      "authority_boundary": "Deliberation does not imply consensus."
    },
    {
      "level": "co_decision",
      "purpose": "Share a bounded decision over named levers.",
      "participant_influence": "Participants and the owner jointly decide the published scope, such as duration and appeal timing.",
      "decision_owner": "Participants and governance working group within the defined scope",
      "evidence_required": [
        "authority allocation",
        "eligibility or participation rule",
        "decision method",
        "conflict rule",
        "decision-change record",
        "implementation follow-through"
      ],
      "appropriate_when": "The organization can genuinely share the named authority and implement the result.",
      "not_appropriate_when": "The organization cannot bind itself to the stated method.",
      "example_outcome": "The six-hour maximum and appeal window are jointly selected.",
      "authority_boundary": "Authority does not extend beyond the named levers."
    },
    {
      "level": "delegated_or_binding",
      "purpose": "Give a bounded body the power to initiate, approve, block, or require action.",
      "participant_influence": "The authorized body makes or blocks the decision under a published mandate.",
      "decision_owner": "Delegated review council within its mandate",
      "evidence_required": [
        "mandate",
        "selection rule",
        "term and expiry",
        "conflict policy",
        "accountability",
        "appeal",
        "revocation",
        "implementation evidence"
      ],
      "appropriate_when": "A valid implementing authority has created a durable, reviewable mandate.",
      "not_appropriate_when": "VNWO templates are being used as a substitute for legal or organizational authority.",
      "example_outcome": "The council blocks activation until the accessibility condition is satisfied.",
      "authority_boundary": "VNWO does not create the mandate or certify its legitimacy."
    }
  ],
  "source_domain": "vnwo.com",
  "claim_boundary_note": "Fictional comparison. It does not rank participants or claim that one influence level is universally appropriate, representative, democratic, lawful, or sufficient."
}