--- type: workshop-module status: author-accepted module: 03 title: Placement and evaluation gate: What placement decision can this process legitimately make about a bonded person? prerequisites: 01, 02 updated: 2026-09-06 accepted: 2026-09-06 --- # 03 · Placement and evaluation ## Purpose Give the outcome concrete consequences while preventing virtue from becoming a single score. This packet supports the existing Story Completion Workflow. The author accepted the result below on September 6. The original alternatives remain preserved as development history. Central synthesis: Astra, reviewed for integration on September 5. ## Accepted result The placement process determines which roles and responsibilities a newly trained human–Luminai pair is qualified to undertake. The older leaders create an extensive assessment framework, but they do not arbitrarily assign the pair's future. The human and Luminai place themselves by choosing among paths supported by their actual decisions, developed skills, and demonstrated qualifications. The assessment establishes credible options and consequences for self-placement. It does not determine a person's human worth, prove moral superiority, or grant an automatic permanent right to govern. The pair chooses together while the human retains responsibility for consequential decisions. A pair that performs well enough can qualify for a House or group with substantial resources and extensive involvement in the continuing colonization process. The pair may choose that path rather than receiving it automatically. Exact thresholds, institutional form, membership rights, resources, authority, obligations, oversight, review, and possible loss remain unresolved. Source and full decision record: [[01 Sessions/Daily/2026-09-06 - Workshop Module 03 Placement Draft]]. ## Relevant source notes - [[01 Sessions/Daily/2026-09-05 - Integrated Foundation Audit and Workshop Build]] - [[02 Story/Systems/Integration and Scoring]] - [[02 Story/Characters/The Inheritor]] ## Confirmed facts and current working constraints - Future placement depends partly on human–Luminai effectiveness. - Working scoring adjusts for conditions and allocated influence. These constraints inherit their source status. A working physical model, timing estimate, or accepted macro constraint does not establish every implementation detail. ## Unresolved gaps and contradictions - Evaluator independence, assessment dimensions, meaningful nonleadership futures, accommodation, appeals, review and what effectiveness means. Arbitrary assignment versus self-placement is now settled. ## Prerequisite decisions Modules: 01, 02. Read their accepted results before closing this gate. Open prerequisites can be explored provisionally, but do not mark dependent choices final. Module numbers are topic IDs; use the dependency order in the workshop index. ## Central author gate > What placement decision can this process legitimately make about a bonded person? **AUTHOR-ACCEPTED 2026-09-06.** Ask this question alone during actual use. Do not ask every follow-up at once. ## Possibilities and tradeoffs ### 1. Role-specific competence portfolio **PROPOSED:** Separate evidence for judgment, craft, collaboration, restraint and recovery. Fairer and dramatically rich, but less instantly legible than rank; anchor in one desired role. ### 2. Provisional stewardship with review **PROPOSED:** Success grants a bounded responsibility rather than status for life. Supports accountable leadership; final triumph becomes a beginning, and monitoring must apply to leaders too. ### 3. Participant preference matched to demonstrated fit **PROPOSED:** Sylvan may discover that a coveted placement conflicts with his values. Strong agency and personal arc; the civilization must offer real options rather than disguise assignment as choice. ### 4. Independent evaluation of process and participant **PROPOSED:** The presentation judges both Sylvan and the institution that exposed him to pressure. Strongest accountability; adds adjudicative complexity and requires more than family authority. ## Targeted follow-up questions - Could a less technically integrated person receive a better-suited placement? - What can an appeal change? - What failure is recoverable? ## Scene test **Non-canon situation:** Sylvan can maximize his visible performance by retaining a witness in the process; letting that person leave costs him evidence or an opportunity. Record what each person wants, can know, can refuse, and can actually change. Name the observable difference between the selected alternatives. ## Adversarial questions - Would the system reward a brilliant coercive operator for producing orderly outcomes? - Which established constraint would this answer break, and what evidence would reveal that break before the payoff? ## Completion checklist - [x] Answer the central question in the author's own words. - [x] Identify the chosen possibility, a modified combination, or a different answer; explain rejected tradeoffs. - [x] Resolve prerequisites 01 and 02. - [x] Run the scene test above and state the consequence for the people involved. - [x] Answer the adversarial challenge without granting unexplained knowledge or authority. - [x] Record what remains working, proposed, or unresolved. - [x] Obtain explicit author acceptance before updating canon or workflow progress. - [x] Trace the accepted answer through the affected notes and rebuild both projections. ## Answer and decision record ```text Module: 03 · Placement and evaluation Gate: What placement decision can this process legitimately make about a bonded person? State: AUTHOR-ACCEPTED Author answer (verbatim): preserved in the linked session record Exact restatement: accepted result above Selected option or new answer: extensive qualification assessment followed by participant self-placement Why this tradeoff: actual decisions and developed skills open credible paths without giving older leaders arbitrary control of each future Rejected alternatives and reasons: permanent rank, automatic authority and arbitrary assignment conflict with the accepted self-placement model Prerequisites resolved / deferred: Modules 01 and 02 resolved Scene test: technical skill can open technical paths without automatically opening unrestricted leadership Adversarial result: self-placement means choice among qualified paths rather than a coercive operator claiming unearned authority Remaining uncertainty: roles, criteria, presentation of options, evaluator independence, appeals, review, accommodation, and House-level structure and oversight Explicit acceptance wording and date: “Yes” — 2026-09-06, accepting the revised self-placement restatement Workflow task and macro-depth effect: supporting workshop Module 03 accepted; SC-010 remains active and unchanged ``` ## Notes and website sections affected - [[01 Sessions/Daily/2026-09-05 - Integrated Foundation Audit and Workshop Build]] - [[02 Story/Systems/Integration and Scoring]] - [[02 Story/Characters/The Inheritor]] - Public atlas: `docs/colonization.html`, the matching source in `05 Public/Atlas/`, and the workshop projection. - Development Explorer: the relevant topic view, this source packet, and linked evidence/decision records. - [[07 QA/Decisions]], [[07 QA/Questions]], and [[07 Coordination/Weekly Synthesis/CURRENT-WEEK-INTAKE]]. Update [[07 Coordination/CURRENT-PICKUP]] and the current task only if the author accepts a workflow-relevant decision.