INTELLIGENT ECOSYSTEM FOUNDATION
A self-led discussion / 45 minutes
One question. More than one perspective.

Bring a small group together around a decision that matters. Leave with a clearer question and one useful inquiry someone has agreed to take forward.

BEFORE YOU BEGIN

Bring a real, bounded choice. An ordinary service or present-day AI proposal works. Invite different perspectives, choose a facilitator and note-taker, and have paper or the decision brief ready.

Share the question in advance where possible. Allow written contributions and time to think. No one needs to disclose personal experiences to take part. Record people who are missing and how their views could be sought; no participant speaks for an entire community or living system.

PART 1 — 00–05 MINUTES (5 MINUTES)
Choose a question small enough to act on.

Name one proposal, its place or service, and the decision that is open now. Give each person a brief chance to say what matters to them.

- What change is being considered, and who may make that decision?
- What remains outside today's discussion?

Write down: One bounded question, written in a sentence.

PART 2 — 05–15 MINUTES (10 MINUTES)
Ask whose life could change.

Describe the condition of life the proposal should improve. Look beyond the people already represented in the room.

- Who could benefit, wait longer, lose access, or carry extra work?
- Which other living beings, places, or future interests could be materially affected?
- What would maintaining the current service or choosing another approach mean?

Write down: A promised benefit, affected interests, and at least one feasible alternative.

PART 3 — 15–30 MINUTES (15 MINUTES)
Find the connection that needs attention.

Sketch the route from the proposal to useful provision. Use short phrases and arrows; a complete model of the ecosystem is unnecessary.

- What knowledge, people, resources, permission, and continuing support must connect? Where could the promise fail?
- What is observed, inferred, proposed, or unknown? Does the evidence show better understanding, a stronger capability, or improved conditions of life?
- Who can question or change a consequential action? What essential support must remain available if it stops?

Write down: One important dependency and the evidence missing or contested around it.

PART 4 — 30–40 MINUTES (10 MINUTES)
Turn the uncertainty into an inquiry.

Choose the smallest useful investigation that could change the open decision. It could be a conversation, a check of a service connection, or a comparison of existing evidence.

- What exact question will we investigate, and what evidence would change our view?
- Whose knowledge is missing, and how can they contribute without carrying an unreasonable burden?
- Who is willing and able to own the inquiry? What time, access, funding, or permission must be confirmed?

Write down: A bounded next inquiry, a proposed owner, and the resources it depends on.

PART 5 — 40–45 MINUTES (5 MINUTES)
Confirm the commitment and return date.

Read the brief back to the group. Preserve disagreement and uncertainty in the record; agreement is not required on everything.

- Has the proposed owner explicitly accepted? If not, who will seek acceptance, and by when?
- When will we review the answer, and who has authority to respond to it?
- What would justify continuing, revising, narrowing, stopping, or expanding the proposal?

Write down: An accepted next inquiry and a review date—or a clearly recorded pending commitment.

AFTER THE CONVERSATION

Give participants the agreed notes through a channel they can use. Let them correct the record. If ownership or resources remain unconfirmed, keep the inquiry marked as pending.

At the review date, ask what was learned, what remains uncertain, and what the evidence changes. Bring consequential decisions to those with the authority to make them. A discussion does not authorize deployment.

WORKING RECORD

Bounded question:

Place or service:

Promised benefit and alternative:

Affected interests, including absent perspectives:

Important dependency:

Evidence, unknowns, and disagreements:

Next inquiry and what evidence would change the decision:

Proposed owner:

Acceptance, resources, and remaining dependencies:

Review date and who can respond to the findings:

SOURCE AND ADAPTATION

This is an original, condensed companion adaptation of Chapters 8 and 20 and Worksheets 1, 3, 6, and 9 of The Intelligent Ecosystem by Idriss Enayat. The timings and facilitation structure are provided for this guide. It is a self-led resource, not an announcement of a hosted event.

Guide: https://intelligentecosystem.org/practice/discussion
Local decision brief: https://intelligentecosystem.org/practice#brief
Free reader starter: https://book.intelligentecosystem.org/starter
The book: https://book.intelligentecosystem.org