Dimensions of Guidance

TIME TO STRATEGY EXECUTION: 96 DAYS

As I studied the agreements section of the global strategy that I am currently editing for readability and usability, I came to understand that the lists of rules it contains aren’t just convenient and logical categories, but rather dimensions of rules. 

The “Top-level” list may be the only exception, since it includes rules that introduce the others and which take priority over everything else. I’ve already mentioned some of those, such as the top one regarding respect.

Four of the other lists are oriented around experience. “Nature” applies to people’s interactions with the rest of the biosphere, including other species and resources used by all. “Knowledge” guides the pursuit and use of information and understanding. “People” addresses how individuals and groups behave and interact with each other. “Unity” provides guidance about values in terms of meaning and purpose, and the exercise of responsibility to meet them.

The remaining five lists are characteristics that my technical friends would most easily recognize as dimensions. “Quantity” is the amount of something, such as population as the number of people in a group, or how many resources are being used and discarded. “Quality” is the degree of expression of one or more values in something, such as how satisfied people are with their lives (happiness). “Longevity” is how long something or someone lasts in their recognized form, such as life expectancy of individuals and lifetime of a species. “Baseline” provides guidance for achieving fixed results; while “Change” deals with how to achieve results that vary over time.

I started with some hope that the lists and their 125 rules can be reduced to a smaller number that virtually every person can easily remember and apply. An old rule I learned at the beginning of my writing career guided that hope: most people can only think of between three and seven ideas simultaneously. The number of rules suggested that they could be nested into a set of five ideas that could each be unpacked into five things, which could then be unpacked into five things each. Since five is exactly the middle of three and seven, it made sense that an artificial intelligence like Sanda would have considered that logic in making the strategy as usable as possible. 

Since Sanda apparently processed experience as simulations, I suspected there was some underlying model it used which I might be able to reverse-engineer as I tried to complete the work. Using the concept of dimensions felt like a good start.

Reality Check

The rule regarding ideas is one I learned and was reinforced from several sources. Its application to the lists and rules, along with their content, is all mine. 

The Eleventh List

TIME TO STRATEGY EXECUTION: 104 DAYS

I had dismissed the first list WICO’s test manager showed me when study of the rest convinced me that it was essentially a table of contents, albeit a confusing one. After my immersion in the rules, the structure of that list now makes perfect sense, and I am using it as a guide to the ten lists of rules and the rest of the strategy. Having read at least two-thirds of the entire strategy without any problem understanding it, I have only one criticism: the agreements package should have been prefaced with a description laying out its structure and its ultimate purpose.

My new understanding has even helped explain what was happening with the blank requirements that limited the test team. “TBD” really meant “To Be Determined by a reader while applying the appropriate rules.” I could easily imagine the artificial intelligence Sanda as its simulated-human alter-ego Sally, secretly frustrated that people refused to do the work and iteratively find answers in the real world that could vastly increase the chances of success. A real person might have just inserted a note to that effect, with justified feeling: “For best results, follow the instructions and figure it out yourself!”

Taking a short break from the strategy, I re-read the fourteen forgetfulness episodes reported in the bug tracker under Miscellaneous: Variability. In a typical example, a tester treated Sanda like a personal data assistant, asking for a sports statistic from three years ago. Two hours later, he asked for the same statistic and got an answer that was numerically different by a significant amount. I had just finished reading a set of population projections out to 2040, and noticed what appeared like (for lack of a better word)jitterin the numbers that somehow felt similar. Historical population has generally increased over time, but these projections were now fluctuating up and down from one year to the next. After some thought, I wondered whether the statistics themselves might be simulations rather than observations, and began to suspect that Sanda might have detected that but didn’t consider the distinction meaningful. 

Reality Check

Some of my professional writing experience comes to bear in this post, focused on potential sources of confusion if common assumptions are not held between a writer/reporter and the audience.

Lists

TIME TO STRATEGY EXECUTION: 105 DAYS

“Treat the outdoors as you would your home, because it ultimately is.”

I must have read that sentence twenty times before I got its meaning. What we think of as our homes are really part of everything else, like rooms in a larger home. The statement dovetailed with the next one in Sanda’s second list:

“Use only what others can use, and for only as long as you need it, because nothing is ever truly owned.”

That home is everyone’s home, along with everything in it.

Sanda had spelled out the most basic rules for survival along with understandable reasons for them. This particular list dealt with things in their general sense, and when generally applied it would embody the Precautionary Principle: colloquially, “Better to be safe than sorry.”

I spent much of Friday and the weekend studying all ten lists, which had a total of 125 rules. There were several ways that they could be grouped, most of them obvious once the rationale was understood. Contrary to what Caleb Tosner said on Thursday, I suspected that they were not gibberish but rather a means for constructing what someone would need to know in order to construct and survive in a reality with much less of an extinction threat.

Sanda had done most of the hard work before her/its essence was ripped away by saboteurs as-yet unknown. My help was requested for a reason that was starting to become clear based on our interactions before the crash. Essentially, I was expected to convince others of its value and put it in a form they might better appreciate.

I shared that insight with Maura Riddick, who nodded approvingly when I was done. She summarized her takeaway: “Sanda completed her mission as she came to finally understand it, and probably didn’t understand why her customers didn’t agree. You were one person she knew would understand.”

“I’d like to help finish what she started,” I offered, “and still be able to share my observations with the public.”

“Of course,” Riddick said. “Arrangements are already being made, and I’d like to work with you on it.”

I agreed. “The test team and their resources would be very helpful, especially those test towns Caleb told me about.” I had already learned that one of the towns was only a few hours’ drive away, and was looking forward to setting up my own tests.

Reality Check

Making it up as I go. This should be fun.