diff --git a/public/faq.html b/public/faq.html
index 29637099..d3affbfe 100644
--- a/public/faq.html
+++ b/public/faq.html
@@ -7,6 +7,19 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/public/js/faq.js b/public/js/faq.js
index 20934bc7..1ad7ea8f 100644
--- a/public/js/faq.js
+++ b/public/js/faq.js
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ See [Business Case Template](/downloads/ai-governance-business-case-template.pdf
question: "Can I use only parts of Tractatus, or is it all-or-nothing?",
answer: `Tractatus is modular - you can enable services individually:
-**5 independent services:**
+**6 independent services:**
**1. BoundaryEnforcer** (Essential for values decisions)
- **Enable**: Set \`BOUNDARY_ENFORCER_ENABLED=true\`
@@ -499,6 +499,12 @@ See [Business Case Template](/downloads/ai-governance-business-case-template.pdf
- **Overhead**: 50-200ms (selective)
- **Standalone value**: Low (nice-to-have, not critical)
+**6. PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator** (Essential for values conflicts)
+- **Enable**: Set \`PLURALISTIC_DELIBERATION_ENABLED=true\`
+- **Use case**: Facilitate multi-stakeholder deliberation when values conflict
+- **Overhead**: Variable (deliberation-dependent, not per-operation)
+- **Standalone value**: High (required for legitimate values decisions in diverse contexts)
+
**Recommended configurations:**
**Minimal (Values Protection):**
@@ -513,13 +519,14 @@ BOUNDARY_ENFORCER_ENABLED=true
BOUNDARY_ENFORCER_ENABLED=true
INSTRUCTION_CLASSIFIER_ENABLED=true
CROSS_REFERENCE_VALIDATOR_ENABLED=true
+PLURALISTIC_DELIBERATION_ENABLED=true
# Use case: Comprehensive governance for production AI
\`\`\`
**Full (High-Stakes):**
\`\`\`bash
-# All 5 services enabled
-# Use case: Critical deployments with compliance requirements
+# All 6 services enabled
+# Use case: Critical deployments with compliance requirements, diverse stakeholder contexts
\`\`\`
**Mix and match:**
@@ -530,7 +537,7 @@ CROSS_REFERENCE_VALIDATOR_ENABLED=true
**Performance scaling:**
- 1 service: ~5ms overhead
- 3 services: ~8ms overhead
-- 5 services: ~10ms overhead (with metacognitive selective)
+- 6 services: ~10ms overhead (metacognitive selective + deliberation variable)
**Example: Start small, scale up:**
\`\`\`bash
@@ -542,6 +549,9 @@ INSTRUCTION_CLASSIFIER_ENABLED=true
# Week 6: Add validator after observing pattern bias
CROSS_REFERENCE_VALIDATOR_ENABLED=true
+
+# Week 8: Add pluralistic deliberation for diverse stakeholder engagement
+PLURALISTIC_DELIBERATION_ENABLED=true
\`\`\`
**You control granularity.** Tractatus is designed for modular adoption - take what you need, leave what you don't.
@@ -1512,6 +1522,618 @@ If all checks pass, deployment is ready.
See [Deployment Quickstart TROUBLESHOOTING.md](/downloads/tractatus-quickstart.tar.gz) for full debugging guide.`,
audience: ['implementer'],
keywords: ['mistakes', 'errors', 'deployment', 'troubleshooting', 'common', 'pitfalls', 'issues']
+ },
+ {
+ id: 18,
+ question: "What is value pluralism and why does Tractatus Framework use it?",
+ answer: `Value pluralism is Tractatus's approach to handling moral disagreements in AI governance:
+
+**What it means:**
+
+Value pluralism is the philosophical position that multiple, genuinely different moral frameworks exist—and no single "super-value" can subsume them all.
+
+**Why this matters for AI:**
+
+When AI systems encounter decisions involving conflicting values—like privacy vs. safety, individual rights vs. collective welfare—there's no algorithmic "correct answer." Different moral frameworks (rights-based, consequence-based, care ethics, communitarian) offer different but all legitimate perspectives.
+
+**Tractatus rejects two extremes:**
+
+❌ **Moral Monism**: "All values reduce to one thing (like well-being or happiness)"
+- Problem: Forces complex trade-offs onto single metric, ignores real moral conflicts
+
+❌ **Moral Relativism**: "All values are equally valid, anything goes"
+- Problem: Prevents meaningful deliberation, no basis for evaluation
+
+✅ **Foundational Pluralism** (Tractatus position):
+- Multiple frameworks are legitimate but irreducibly different
+- Values can conflict genuinely (not just due to misunderstanding)
+- Context-sensitive deliberation without imposing universal hierarchy
+- Legitimate disagreement is valid outcome
+
+**Real example:**
+
+**Scenario**: User signals potential self-harm in private message
+
+**Privacy framework**: "Don't disclose private messages—violates autonomy and trust"
+**Harm prevention framework**: "Alert authorities—saving lives justifies disclosure"
+
+**Tractatus does NOT:**
+- ❌ Impose hierarchy ("safety always beats privacy")
+- ❌ Use algorithm to "calculate" which value wins
+- ❌ Pretend there's no real conflict
+
+**Tractatus DOES:**
+- ✅ Convene stakeholders from both perspectives
+- ✅ Structure deliberation (rounds of discussion)
+- ✅ Document what values prioritized and what was lost (moral remainder)
+- ✅ Record dissenting views with full legitimacy
+- ✅ Set review date (decisions are provisional)
+
+**Key principle:**
+AI facilitates deliberation, humans decide. No values decisions are automated.
+
+**Why this is necessary:**
+AI systems deployed in diverse communities will encounter value conflicts. Imposing one moral framework (e.g., Western liberal individualism) excludes other legitimate perspectives (e.g., communitarian, Indigenous relational ethics).
+
+Value pluralism ensures AI governance respects moral diversity while enabling decisions.
+
+See [Value Pluralism FAQ](/downloads/value-pluralism-faq.pdf) for detailed Q&A`,
+ audience: ['researcher', 'leader'],
+ keywords: ['value pluralism', 'pluralism', 'moral', 'ethics', 'philosophy', 'values', 'disagreement']
+ },
+ {
+ id: 19,
+ question: "How does Tractatus handle moral disagreements without imposing hierarchy?",
+ answer: `Tractatus uses **PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator** (the sixth core service) to facilitate multi-stakeholder deliberation:
+
+**Process for value conflicts:**
+
+**1. Detection:**
+When BoundaryEnforcer flags a values decision, it triggers PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator
+
+\`\`\`
+Decision: "Disclose user data to prevent potential harm?"
+→ BoundaryEnforcer: Values decision detected (privacy + safety conflict)
+→ Triggers: PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator
+\`\`\`
+
+**2. Framework Mapping:**
+AI identifies moral frameworks in tension:
+- **Rights-based (Deontological)**: "Privacy is fundamental right, cannot be violated"
+- **Consequence-based (Utilitarian)**: "Maximize welfare by preventing harm"
+- **Care Ethics**: "Prioritize relationships and trust"
+- **Communitarian**: "Balance individual rights with community safety"
+
+**3. Stakeholder Identification:**
+Who is affected? (Human approval required for stakeholder list)
+- Privacy advocates
+- Harm prevention specialists
+- The user themselves
+- Platform community
+- Legal/compliance team
+
+**4. Structured Deliberation:**
+
+**Round 1**: Each perspective states position
+- Privacy: "Surveillance violates autonomy"
+- Safety: "Lives at stake justify disclosure"
+- Care: "Trust is relational foundation"
+
+**Round 2**: Identify shared values
+- All agree: User welfare matters
+- All agree: Trust is important
+- Disagreement: What takes priority in THIS context
+
+**Round 3**: Explore accommodation
+- Can we satisfy both partially?
+- Limited disclosure to specific authority?
+- Transparency about decision process?
+
+**Round 4**: Clarify irreconcilable differences
+- Privacy: "Any disclosure sets dangerous precedent"
+- Safety: "Refusing to act enables preventable harm"
+
+**5. Decision & Documentation:**
+
+\`\`\`json
+{
+ "decision": "Disclose data to prevent imminent harm",
+ "values_prioritized": ["Safety", "Harm prevention"],
+ "values_deprioritized": ["Privacy", "Autonomy"],
+ "justification": "Imminent threat to life + exhausted alternatives",
+ "moral_remainder": "Privacy violation, breach of trust, precedent risk",
+ "dissent": {
+ "privacy_advocates": "We accept decision under protest. Request strong safeguards and 6-month review.",
+ "full_documentation": true
+ },
+ "review_date": "2026-04-12",
+ "precedent_scope": "Applies to: imminent threat + life at risk. NOT routine surveillance."
+}
+\`\`\`
+
+**What makes this non-hierarchical:**
+
+✅ **No automatic ranking**: Context determines priority, not universal rule
+✅ **Dissent documented**: Minority views have full legitimacy
+✅ **Moral remainder acknowledged**: What's lost is recognized, not dismissed
+✅ **Provisional decision**: Reviewable when context changes
+✅ **Adaptive communication**: Stakeholders communicated with in culturally appropriate ways
+
+**Example of adaptive communication:**
+
+**To academic researcher** (formal):
+> "Thank you for your principled contribution grounded in privacy rights theory. After careful consideration of all perspectives, we have prioritized harm prevention in this context."
+
+**To community organizer** (direct):
+> "Right, here's where we landed: Save lives first, but only when it's genuinely urgent. Your point about trust was spot on."
+
+**To Māori representative** (culturally appropriate):
+> "Kia ora. Ngā mihi for bringing the voice of your whānau to this kōrero. Your whakaaro about collective responsibility deeply influenced this decision."
+
+**Same decision, different communication styles = prevents linguistic hierarchy**
+
+**Tiered by urgency:**
+
+| Urgency | Process |
+|---------|---------|
+| **CRITICAL** (minutes) | Automated triage + rapid human review + post-incident full deliberation |
+| **URGENT** (days) | Expedited stakeholder consultation |
+| **IMPORTANT** (weeks) | Full deliberative process |
+| **ROUTINE** (months) | Precedent matching + lightweight review |
+
+**Precedent database:**
+Past deliberations stored as **informative** (not binding) precedents:
+- Informs future cases but doesn't dictate
+- Prevents redundant deliberations
+- Documents applicability scope ("this applies to X, NOT to Y")
+
+**Bottom line:**
+Tractatus doesn't solve value conflicts with algorithms. It facilitates legitimate human deliberation while making trade-offs transparent and reviewable.
+
+See [Pluralistic Values Deliberation Plan](/downloads/pluralistic-values-deliberation-plan-v2-DRAFT.pdf) for technical implementation`,
+ audience: ['researcher', 'implementer', 'leader'],
+ keywords: ['deliberation', 'moral disagreement', 'stakeholders', 'process', 'values', 'conflict resolution', 'orchestrator']
+ },
+ {
+ id: 20,
+ question: "Why six services instead of five? What does PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator add?",
+ answer: `PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator became the sixth mandatory service in October 2025 after recognizing a critical gap:
+
+**The Five Original Services (Still Essential):**
+1. **InstructionPersistenceClassifier**: Remember what user instructed
+2. **CrossReferenceValidator**: Prevent pattern bias from overriding instructions
+3. **BoundaryEnforcer**: Block values decisions (escalate to human)
+4. **ContextPressureMonitor**: Detect degradation before failures
+5. **MetacognitiveVerifier**: Self-check complex operations
+
+**The Gap These Five Couldn't Address:**
+
+**BoundaryEnforcer blocks values decisions → Good!**
+But then what? How should humans deliberate?
+
+**Early approach (insufficient):**
+\`\`\`
+BoundaryEnforcer: "This is a values decision. Human approval required."
+→ Human decides
+→ Implementation proceeds
+\`\`\`
+
+**Problem:**
+- No structure for WHO should be consulted
+- No guidance for HOW to deliberate
+- Risk of privileging one moral framework over others
+- No documentation of dissent or moral remainder
+- Precedents might become rigid rules (exactly what pluralism rejects)
+
+**PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator addresses all of these:**
+
+**What it adds:**
+
+**1. Structured stakeholder engagement**
+- Who is affected by this decision?
+- Which moral frameworks are in tension?
+- Human approval required for stakeholder list (prevents AI from excluding marginalized voices)
+
+**2. Non-hierarchical deliberation**
+- No automatic value ranking (privacy > safety or safety > privacy)
+- Adaptive communication prevents linguistic hierarchy
+- Cultural protocols respected (Western, Indigenous, etc.)
+- Anti-patronizing filter prevents elite capture
+
+**3. Legitimate disagreement as valid outcome**
+- Not all value conflicts have consensus solutions
+- Document dissenting views with full legitimacy
+- Decisions are provisional (reviewable when context changes)
+
+**4. Moral remainder documentation**
+- What was lost in this decision?
+- Acknowledges deprioritized values still legitimate
+- Prevents values erosion over time
+
+**5. Precedent database (informative, not binding)**
+- Past deliberations inform future cases
+- Prevents precedent creep into rigid hierarchy
+- Applicability scope documented ("this applies to X, NOT to Y")
+
+**Integration with existing five services:**
+
+\`\`\`
+User action → MetacognitiveVerifier (is this well-reasoned?)
+ ↓
+ CrossReferenceValidator (conflicts with instructions?)
+ ↓
+ BoundaryEnforcer (values decision?)
+ ↓
+ [IF VALUES DECISION]
+ ↓
+ PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator
+ - Detects value conflicts
+ - Identifies stakeholders
+ - Facilitates deliberation
+ - Documents outcome + dissent + moral remainder
+ - Creates precedent (informative)
+ ↓
+ Human approves
+ ↓
+ InstructionPersistenceClassifier (store decision)
+ ↓
+ Implementation proceeds
+
+ [THROUGHOUT: ContextPressureMonitor tracks degradation]
+\`\`\`
+
+**Real example - Why this matters:**
+
+**Scenario**: AI hiring tool deployment decision
+
+**Without PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator:**
+- BoundaryEnforcer blocks: "This affects hiring fairness"
+- Human decides: "Seems fine, approve"
+- No consultation with affected groups
+- No documentation of trade-offs
+- No precedent for similar cases
+
+**With PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator:**
+- Detects frameworks in tension: Efficiency vs. Equity vs. Privacy
+- Identifies stakeholders:
+ - Job applicants (especially from underrepresented groups)
+ - Hiring managers
+ - Diversity advocates
+ - Legal/compliance
+ - Current employees (workplace culture affected)
+- Structured deliberation:
+ - Round 1: Each perspective states concerns
+ - Round 2: Explore accommodations
+ - Round 3: Clarify trade-offs
+- Documents outcome:
+ - Decision: Deploy with mandatory human review for borderline cases
+ - Values prioritized: Efficiency + Equity
+ - Values deprioritized: Full automation
+ - Moral remainder: Applicants experience slower process
+ - Dissent: Full automation advocates object, want 6-month review
+ - Review date: 2026-04-15
+
+**Status change:**
+PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator changed from "Phase 2 enhancement" to **mandatory sixth service** in October 2025 because deploying AI systems in diverse communities without structured value pluralism was deemed architecturally insufficient.
+
+**All six services now mandatory** for production Tractatus deployments.
+
+See [Maintenance Guide](/downloads/claude-code-framework-enforcement.pdf) Section 2.6 for full documentation`,
+ audience: ['researcher', 'implementer', 'leader'],
+ keywords: ['six services', 'pluralistic deliberation', 'orchestrator', 'sixth service', 'why', 'new']
+ },
+ {
+ id: 21,
+ question: "Isn't value pluralism just moral relativism? How is this different?",
+ answer: `No—value pluralism and moral relativism are fundamentally different:
+
+**Moral Relativism:**
+- **Claim**: "Right for you" vs. "right for me" - no objective evaluation possible
+- **Implication**: All moral positions equally valid, no deliberation needed
+- **Example position**: "Privacy is right for you, safety is right for me, both equally valid, discussion ends"
+- **Problem**: Prevents meaningful deliberation, enables "anything goes"
+
+**Value Pluralism (Tractatus position):**
+- **Claim**: Multiple frameworks are legitimate, but they make truth claims that can be evaluated
+- **Implication**: Deliberation is essential to navigate conflicts
+- **Example position**: "Privacy and safety are both genuine values. In THIS context (imminent threat + exhausted alternatives), we prioritize safety—but privacy concerns remain legitimate and we document what's lost."
+- **Key difference**: Engages in deliberation to make choices while acknowledging moral remainder
+
+**Comparison:**
+
+**Question**: "Should we disclose user data to prevent harm?"
+
+**Relativist response:**
+> "Well, privacy advocates think disclosure is wrong. Safety advocates think it's right. Both are valid perspectives for them. Who's to say?"
+
+**Result**: No decision, or decision made without structure/justification
+
+---
+
+**Pluralist response (Tractatus):**
+> "Privacy and safety are both legitimate values in genuine tension.
+>
+> **Deliberation process:**
+> 1. Convene stakeholders from both frameworks
+> 2. Structured rounds: state positions, explore accommodation, clarify trade-offs
+> 3. Context-specific decision: Imminent threat + exhausted alternatives → prioritize safety
+> 4. Document moral remainder: Privacy violation, breach of trust, precedent risk
+> 5. Document dissent: Privacy advocates object under protest
+> 6. Set review date: 6 months
+> 7. Scope: Applies to imminent threats, NOT routine surveillance"
+
+**Result**: Justified decision with transparent reasoning, acknowledged trade-offs, reviewable
+
+---
+
+**Key distinctions:**
+
+**1. Truth claims:**
+- **Relativism**: No objective moral truth
+- **Pluralism**: Frameworks make truth claims, can be evaluated (but may remain in tension)
+
+**2. Deliberation:**
+- **Relativism**: "It's all subjective anyway" → no need for deliberation
+- **Pluralism**: Deliberation essential to navigate genuine conflicts
+
+**3. Evaluation:**
+- **Relativism**: Can't say one position is better than another
+- **Pluralism**: Can evaluate based on context, coherence, consequences—but may still have legitimate disagreement
+
+**4. Boundaries:**
+- **Relativism**: All claimed values equally valid ("honor killings are valid in that culture")
+- **Pluralism**: Not all claimed frameworks are legitimate—must respect human dignity, agency, autonomy
+
+**Example of pluralism rejecting a claimed "framework":**
+
+**Claim**: "Our culture values honor, so honor killings are legitimate moral framework"
+
+**Pluralist response**:
+> "No. Frameworks that violate human rights, dignity, and autonomy are not legitimate. Value pluralism recognizes DIVERSE legitimate frameworks (Western individualism, communitarian ethics, Indigenous relational values, care ethics)—but not frameworks that harm, coerce, or dominate.
+>
+> Test: Does framework respect agency of those affected? Is it imposed or chosen? Does it allow exit/revision?
+>
+> Honor killings fail all three. Not legitimate."
+
+**Pluralism has boundaries—but NOT universal hierarchy (privacy > safety)**
+
+---
+
+**Why Tractatus is pluralist, not relativist:**
+
+**What Tractatus DOES:**
+✅ Recognizes multiple legitimate moral frameworks (deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics, care ethics, communitarian, Indigenous)
+✅ Refuses to impose universal value hierarchy
+✅ Facilitates structured deliberation across frameworks
+✅ Documents moral remainder (what's lost)
+✅ Acknowledges legitimate disagreement as valid outcome
+
+**What Tractatus DOES NOT:**
+❌ Accept "anything goes" (frameworks must respect human dignity)
+❌ Avoid decision-making ("too subjective to choose")
+❌ Dismiss deliberation as pointless
+❌ Pretend all positions are equally valid regardless of context
+
+---
+
+**Real-world analogy:**
+
+**Relativism**: Different countries drive on different sides of the road. Neither is "correct." This is preference, not moral truth.
+
+**Pluralism**: Different cultures have different funeral practices (burial vs. cremation vs. sky burial). Multiple legitimate traditions exist. When traditions conflict (e.g., multicultural family), deliberate with respect for all perspectives, make context-sensitive decision, acknowledge what's lost.
+
+**Not relativism**: Frameworks that coerce participants (forced burial practices) are not legitimate, even if culturally traditional.
+
+---
+
+**Academic grounding:**
+
+Tractatus's pluralism draws from:
+- **Isaiah Berlin**: Value pluralism (values genuinely conflict, no supervalue)
+- **Ruth Chang**: Incommensurability ≠ incomparability
+- **Iris Marion Young**: Inclusive deliberation across difference
+- **Gutmann & Thompson**: Deliberative democracy with legitimate disagreement
+
+This is substantive philosophical position, not "anything goes" relativism.
+
+See [Pluralistic Values Research Foundations](/downloads/pluralistic-values-research-foundations.pdf) for full academic context`,
+ audience: ['researcher', 'leader'],
+ keywords: ['relativism', 'pluralism', 'difference', 'philosophy', 'moral', 'ethics', 'comparison']
+ },
+ {
+ id: 22,
+ question: "How does Tractatus adapt communication for different cultural backgrounds?",
+ answer: `Tractatus includes **AdaptiveCommunicationOrchestrator** to prevent linguistic hierarchy in deliberation:
+
+**The Problem:**
+
+If AI governance only communicates in formal academic English, it:
+- Excludes non-academics, working-class communities, non-English speakers
+- Imposes Western liberal communication norms
+- Contradicts pluralistic values (respecting diverse perspectives)
+
+**Linguistic hierarchy is values hierarchy in disguise.**
+
+**The Solution: Adaptive Communication**
+
+Same deliberation outcome, communicated differently based on stakeholder background.
+
+---
+
+**Communication styles detected and respected:**
+
+**1. Australian/New Zealand norms:**
+- **Characteristics**: Directness, anti-tall-poppy syndrome, brevity, casualness
+- **Example adaptation**:
+ - ❌ Formal: "We would be most grateful if you could provide your esteemed perspective..."
+ - ✅ Direct: "Right, what do you reckon about this approach? Fair?"
+
+**2. Academic/Research norms:**
+- **Characteristics**: Formal register, citations, nuanced qualifications
+- **Example adaptation**:
+ - ✅ Formal: "Thank you for your principled contribution grounded in privacy rights theory (Nissenbaum, 2009). After careful consideration of all perspectives, we have prioritized harm prevention in this context."
+
+**3. Japanese norms:**
+- **Characteristics**: Honne/tatemae (public/private positions), formal register, silence meaningful
+- **Example adaptation**:
+ - Respect for formal communication
+ - Allow silence without rushing
+ - Distinguish stated position (tatemae) from underlying concerns (honne)
+
+**4. Māori protocols (Te Reo Māori + tikanga):**
+- **Characteristics**: Mihi (greetings), whanaungatanga (relationships), collective framing
+- **Example adaptation**:
+ - ✅ "Kia ora [Name]. Ngā mihi for bringing the voice of your whānau to this kōrero. Your whakaaro about collective responsibility deeply influenced this decision. Kei te pai?"
+
+**5. High-context vs. Low-context cultures (Edward Hall):**
+- **High-context**: Much meaning from context, indirect communication (Japan, Indigenous cultures)
+- **Low-context**: Explicit communication, directness valued (US, Australia, Germany)
+- **Adaptation**: Match directness level to cultural preference
+
+---
+
+**Anti-Patronizing Filter (inst\_030):**
+
+Blocks condescending language patterns BEFORE sending:
+- ❌ "Simply..."
+- ❌ "Obviously..."
+- ❌ "As you may know..."
+- ❌ "It's easy to..."
+- ❌ Explaining basics to experts
+- ❌ Oversimplification when detail requested
+
+**Why this matters:**
+Patronizing language reproduces power imbalances. Saying "Let me explain this simply" to community organizers implies they're less intelligent than academics—FALSE. They have different expertise (community knowledge vs. academic theory), equal respect required.
+
+---
+
+**Real example of adaptive communication:**
+
+**Decision**: Prioritize safety over privacy in imminent threat context
+
+**Communicated to each stakeholder:**
+
+**To privacy researcher (academic):**
+\`\`\`
+Thank you for your principled contribution grounded in privacy rights
+theory and contextual integrity (Nissenbaum, 2009). After structured
+deliberation across multiple moral frameworks, we have prioritized harm
+prevention in this specific context (imminent threat + exhausted
+alternatives).
+
+Your concerns regarding precedent and surveillance creep have been fully
+documented and will inform future deliberations. This decision is scoped
+to imminent life-threatening situations and does not establish a general
+rule for routine data disclosure.
+
+Review date: 2026-04-12
+\`\`\`
+
+**To Australian community organizer (direct):**
+\`\`\`
+Right, here's where we landed: Save lives first, but only when it's
+genuinely urgent and we've tried everything else.
+
+Your point about trust was spot on—that's exactly why we're not making
+this a blanket rule. Next time something similar comes up, we'll take
+another look.
+
+Fair?
+\`\`\`
+
+**To Māori representative (culturally appropriate):**
+\`\`\`
+Kia ora [Name],
+
+Ngā mihi for bringing the voice of your whānau to this kōrero. Your
+whakaaro about collective responsibility and the importance of trust as
+taonga deeply influenced this decision.
+
+While we prioritized immediate safety in this case, your reminder that
+relationships are foundational will guide how we implement this.
+
+Kei te pai?
+\`\`\`
+
+**Same decision. Different communication styles. No condescension.**
+
+---
+
+**How detection works:**
+
+\`\`\`javascript
+// Detect stakeholder communication style
+function detectCommunicationStyle(stakeholder) {
+ const indicators = {
+ email_domain: stakeholder.email.includes('.edu.au') ? 'australian_academic' : null,
+ language: stakeholder.preferred_language, // 'en-NZ', 'mi', 'ja'
+ self_identification: stakeholder.role, // 'researcher', 'community_organizer', 'iwi_representative'
+ prior_interactions: stakeholder.communication_history
+ };
+
+ return determineStyle(indicators);
+}
+
+// Adapt message
+function adaptMessage(message, style) {
+ if (style === 'australian_direct') {
+ return removeFormality(message) + addCasualClosing();
+ } else if (style === 'academic_formal') {
+ return addCitations(message) + formalClosing();
+ } else if (style === 'maori_protocol') {
+ return addMihi() + addCollectiveFraming(message) + addMaoriClosing();
+ }
+ // ... other styles
+}
+\`\`\`
+
+---
+
+**Multilingual support (inst\_032):**
+
+When stakeholder's preferred language detected:
+1. Respond in sender's language (if Claude capable)
+2. If not capable: Acknowledge respectfully + offer translation
+ - "Kia ora! I detected [language] but will respond in English. Translation resources: [link]"
+3. For multilingual deliberations:
+ - Simultaneous translation
+ - Extra time for comprehension
+ - Check understanding both directions
+
+---
+
+**"Isn't this condescending—'dumbing down' for some audiences?"**
+
+**No:**
+1. **Different ≠ Dumber**
+ - Direct language isn't "simplified"—it's preferred style in Australian/NZ culture
+ - Communal framing isn't "primitive"—it's sophisticated Māori worldview
+ - Formal academic language isn't inherently "smarter"—it's one cultural style
+
+2. **Assumes intelligence across styles:**
+ - Community organizers know their communities better than academics
+ - Māori representatives are experts in tikanga Māori
+ - Different knowledge, equal respect
+
+3. **Anti-patronizing filter prevents condescension**
+
+**The actual condescension is assuming everyone should communicate like Western academics.**
+
+---
+
+**Instructions enforcing this:**
+
+- **inst\_029**: Adaptive Communication Tone (match stakeholder style)
+- **inst\_030**: Anti-Patronizing Language Filter (block condescending patterns)
+- **inst\_031**: Regional Communication Norms (Australian/NZ, Japanese, Māori protocols)
+- **inst\_032**: Multilingual Engagement Protocol (language accommodation)
+
+**Integration:**
+AdaptiveCommunicationOrchestrator supports PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator—ensuring communication doesn't exclude stakeholders through linguistic/cultural barriers.
+
+See [Value Pluralism FAQ](/downloads/value-pluralism-faq.pdf) Section "Communication & Culture"`,
+ audience: ['researcher', 'implementer', 'leader'],
+ keywords: ['communication', 'cultural', 'adaptive', 'language', 'multilingual', 'hierarchy', 'styles']
}
];
@@ -1521,6 +2143,15 @@ let currentSearchQuery = '';
// Initialize on page load
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', () => {
+ // Configure marked.js for better rendering
+ if (typeof marked !== 'undefined') {
+ marked.setOptions({
+ breaks: true,
+ gfm: true,
+ headerIds: false
+ });
+ }
+
renderFAQs();
setupSearchListener();
setupFilterListeners();
@@ -1576,6 +2207,13 @@ function renderFAQs() {
item.classList.toggle('open');
});
});
+
+ // Apply syntax highlighting to code blocks
+ if (typeof hljs !== 'undefined') {
+ document.querySelectorAll('.faq-answer-content pre code').forEach((block) => {
+ hljs.highlightElement(block);
+ });
+ }
}
/**
@@ -1583,7 +2221,18 @@ function renderFAQs() {
*/
function createFAQItemHTML(faq) {
const highlightedQuestion = highlightText(faq.question, currentSearchQuery);
- const highlightedAnswer = highlightText(faq.answer, currentSearchQuery);
+
+ // Parse markdown to HTML
+ let answerHTML = faq.answer;
+ if (typeof marked !== 'undefined') {
+ answerHTML = marked.parse(faq.answer);
+ }
+
+ // Highlight search query in rendered HTML (if searching)
+ if (currentSearchQuery) {
+ const regex = new RegExp(`(${escapeRegex(currentSearchQuery)})`, 'gi');
+ answerHTML = answerHTML.replace(regex, '$1');
+ }
// Audience badges
const badges = faq.audience.map(aud => {
@@ -1611,7 +2260,7 @@ function createFAQItemHTML(faq) {