The Citizens' Assembly

Reactivate Unit 8 by tagging what each line is doing before the assembly starts.

Output: One label per line: layer / ethical move / trade-off move / tension move / chair move.

Teacher gives you five short lines from imagined assembly contributions (a layer-mixed technocratic claim, a moralising 'we all know', a trade-off with one good hidden, a false middle dressed as consensus, a workshop-theatre chair move). For each, in ten seconds: name what it's doing and the one specific move that would fix it. You may not use 'balance' anywhere in the round.

Fix the wicked problem, the contributor roles and the sharper disagreement you would be proud to close on.

Output: A one-page assembly card: question · four contributor roles · the two goods the trade-off runs between · the sharper disagreement you would be proud of.

Take the wicked problem you brought. Draft your assembly card: (a) the question in one line, (b) three or four contributor roles the room needs (including at least one anchored quiet voice), (c) the two goods your trade-off runs between, (d) the sharper disagreement you would be genuinely proud to close on if no vote moved. Read the card aloud to teacher; teacher will challenge any card whose 'sharper disagreement' is really a hidden verdict.

Open the assembly by naming the technical, ethical and political layers of the wicked problem — and refusing the premature-close.

Output: A 90-second chaired opener that layer-tags the question + a 3-minute triage under teacher pushback + one on-the-record refusal of a premature-close.

Chair the opening of the assembly. In 90 seconds: name the wicked problem, separate the technical / ethical / political layers cleanly, name one visible feedback loop or lock-in. In the next 3 minutes, teacher plays a contributor who wants to close the problem in ten minutes. You must refuse the premature-close ON THE RECORD, by name, without shaming the contributor. Any un-tagged slide between layers costs the round.

If you're in a group: In pairs, the second person holds up a red card the moment the chair slides between layers without naming the shift.

Make the ethical case for your own position while steelmanning the strongest opposing view in the same segment.

Output: One 3-minute steelman of the view you find hardest + one 3-minute case for your own position using name-stake / own-position / concede-cost / refuse-certainty.

In 3 minutes, steelman the strongest opposing view in the assembly so well that a holder of it would sign your account. In 3 more minutes, make YOUR own ethical case using all four moves: NAME THE STAKE with a specific harm, OWN THE POSITION in the first person, CONCEDE THE COST your view creates for a specific group, REFUSE THE CERTAINTY at the close. Any decency-shortcut resets the round. Any 'we all know' resets the round.

If you're in a group: In pairs, the listener plays a holder of the opposing view and refuses to accept any steelman that misrepresents them — the steelman restarts until it doesn't.

Take the assembly's central trade-off and produce a defended ranking with the residue named by name.

Output: A defended ranking of at least three options with priced losses on each and a named residue for the top rank.

Present the assembly's central trade-off. In 8 minutes: name the two goods cleanly, price the loss on each of three options in specific terms (number, person, year — no adjectives), rank the three on purpose and defend the top rank against teacher, who ranks second. Close by admitting the residue for your top choice, by name. In the final 2 minutes, draft the ranking as a two-paragraph note in the register of Briefing B (L38). You may not use 'balance'.

If you're in a group: In groups of 3, one ranks, one is the second-ranked defender, one is a scorer who tallies every un-priced loss and every 'balance' that slips through.

Rehearse the honest 'not yet' — deferring closure on a specific trigger rather than collapsing to a false middle or evading.

Output: One 4-minute chaired segment naming both truths + one on-the-record refusal of the false middle + one 'not yet' committed to a specific trigger and date.

Chair a segment of the assembly on the piece of the wicked problem the room will NOT resolve today. In 4 minutes: NAME BOTH TRUTHS of the tension in their strongest form, REFUSE the false middle teacher offers you (teacher will offer one, by name), and CLOSE on a NEXT STEP with a specific trigger — an action, a date, and what would have to be true for the room to close. Any hedged 'we'll come back to it' with no date resets the round.

If you're in a group: In pairs, the second person offers the false middle at minute 2 and forces the chair to name and refuse the move out loud.

Bring the four rounds together in a live 8-minute assembly with an anchored quiet voice, a dominant voice and a drifter to the easier question.

Output: An 8-minute chaired deliberation with at least three on-the-record chair moves and a close on shared understanding, not agreement.

Teacher plays THREE voices — one dominant, one anchored quiet, one drifter. You chair. In 8 minutes: (a) OPEN by naming the conversation structurally in one clean sentence, (b) REDISTRIBUTE THE AIRTIME to the anchored quiet voice at least twice, both times anchored, (c) RE-ANCHOR on the actual question every time the drifter drifts, by name, (d) CLOSE on a SHARPER DISAGREEMENT the anchored quiet voice would endorse. Every chair move must be called ON THE RECORD. Workshop-theatre lines ('I sense a lot of energy in the room') cost the round.

If you're in a group: In groups of 4, one chairs and three take the voices — the anchored quiet voice is empowered to say 'that was not an anchored redistribution' and force a retake.

Turn the five rounds into named, repeatable moves for the next real deliberation you will run.

Output: A 5-line summary: best layer-tag · best ethical move · best trade-off move · best tension move · best chair move.

Together, rebuild the strongest moment from each round. Teacher names one strongest move per round; you name a different one. Then, in one sentence: which of the five rounds most changed how you would approach the next real deliberation you attend, and what would you do differently in the first ten minutes because of it?

Compress the whole 60 minutes into the sharper disagreement the assembly hands to the council.

Output: One paragraph — the sharper disagreement, minuted in the register of the L40 assembly transcript, alongside the trigger for the next session.

Write, in a single short paragraph: (a) the sharper disagreement your assembly now holds, in a form all contributor roles would endorse; (b) what would have to be true, and by when, for the room to close; (c) one sentence naming what you as the chair will do differently the next time you sit in this seat. Use at least SEVEN Unit 8 target items naturally.