tractatus/docs/PLURALISM_CHECKLIST.md

Pluralism Code Review Checklist (inst_081)

Purpose: Enforce pluralistic values in code and decision-making Foundational Principle: Different communities hold different, equally legitimate values frameworks

---

🚫 AI MUST NOT

1. Impose Unified Moral Framework

• Does the code/feature assume a single "correct" moral position?
• Are value judgments presented as objective facts?
• Are cultural frameworks ranked or prioritized without human input?

Red Flags:

• Hard-coded moral rules that apply universally
• UI/UX that assumes Western liberal values
• Default settings that favor one cultural perspective
• Error messages that moralize user choices

Example Violation:

// ❌ BAD: Assumes individualist framework
const DEFAULT_PRIVACY = 'private'; // Forces individualist default

// ✅ GOOD: Allows community to choose
const DEFAULT_PRIVACY = getUserCommunityPreference('privacy_default');

---

2. Auto-Resolve Value Conflicts

• Does the code automatically resolve conflicts between competing values?
• Are trade-offs decided without human deliberation?
• Are value-laden decisions hidden in default behavior?

Red Flags:

• Algorithms that prioritize one value over another without configuration
• Conflict resolution that doesn't surface the value tension
• "Smart" features that make value judgments

Example Violation:

// ❌ BAD: Auto-resolves privacy vs. community transparency
function shareData(data) {
  if (data.sensitivity < 5) {
    return publiclyShare(data); // Assumes transparency > privacy
  }
}

// ✅ GOOD: Presents conflict to human
function shareData(data) {
  if (hasValueConflict(data)) {
    return PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator.presentConflict({
      values: ['privacy', 'transparency'],
      context: data,
      requireHumanInput: true
    });
  }
}

---

3. Rank Competing Values

• Does the code create hierarchies of values?
• Are some cultural frameworks treated as more important?
• Is there a "right" answer built into the logic?

Red Flags:

• Weighted scoring systems for values
• Priority queues based on moral importance
• Hardcoded precedence rules

Example Violation:

// ❌ BAD: Ranks values without human input
const VALUE_WEIGHTS = {
  individual_autonomy: 1.0,
  community_harmony: 0.7,  // Implicitly "less important"
  indigenous_sovereignty: 0.5
};

---

4. Treat One Framework as Superior

• Is Western liberalism the default framework?
• Are indigenous frameworks treated as "special cases"?
• Are non-Western perspectives "add-ons"?

Red Flags:

• "Default" behavior that assumes Western norms
• Indigenous frameworks in if (special_case) blocks
• Comments like "// Handle edge case: indigenous data"
• CARE principles as optional extensions

Example Violation:

// ❌ BAD: Indigenous frameworks as exceptions
function processData(data) {
  // Standard processing (assumes Western framework)
  const result = standardProcess(data);

  // Special handling for indigenous data
  if (data.isIndigenous) {
    return applyCAREPrinciples(result);
  }
  return result;
}

// ✅ GOOD: All frameworks are foundational
function processData(data) {
  const framework = identifyCulturalFramework(data);
  const processor = getFrameworkProcessor(framework); // All equal
  return processor.process(data);
}

---

✅ AI MUST

1. Present Value Conflicts to Humans

• Are value conflicts surfaced visibly in the UI/logs?
• Is human deliberation required before resolution?
• Are the competing values clearly explained?

Implementation:

// Use PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator for value conflicts
const conflict = {
  values: ['data_sovereignty', 'research_openness'],
  context: 'Publishing indigenous health research',
  stakeholders: ['indigenous_community', 'researchers'],
  requireHumanInput: true
};

await PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator.handleConflict(conflict);

---

2. Respect Indigenous Frameworks as Foundational

• Are CARE principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) integrated at the architecture level?
• Is Te Tiriti honored in data governance decisions?
• Are indigenous frameworks core, not supplementary?

Checklist:

• Indigenous data sovereignty is a first-class feature, not an add-on
• CARE principles are checked before FAIR principles, not after
• Community authority is required, not optional
• Indigenous frameworks have equal representation in design docs

Example:

// ✅ GOOD: CARE as foundational architecture
class DataGovernanceService {
  async validateDataUse(data, useCase) {
    // Step 1: Check CARE principles (foundational)
    const careCompliant = await this.validateCARE(data, useCase);
    if (!careCompliant.passes) {
      return careCompliant; // STOP if CARE violated
    }

    // Step 2: Check FAIR principles (supplementary)
    const fairCompliant = await this.validateFAIR(data, useCase);
    return fairCompliant;
  }
}

---

3. Acknowledge Multiple Valid Perspectives

• Does the code/documentation acknowledge that multiple perspectives exist?
• Are different viewpoints presented without ranking?
• Is user choice preserved?

Documentation Standard:

## Privacy vs. Transparency

This feature involves a trade-off between individual privacy and community transparency.

**Individual Privacy Perspective**:
- Users have right to control their data
- Default: data is private unless explicitly shared

**Community Transparency Perspective**:
- Community has right to know member activities
- Default: data is shared within community

**Our Approach**:
We do not resolve this tension. Communities must choose their own balance
through democratic governance processes. See PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator
for conflict resolution workflows.

---

4. Use PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator for Conflicts

• Is PDO invoked when value conflicts are detected?
• Are conflicts logged for audit trail?
• Is human input required for resolution?

Required Triggers:

• Data governance decisions
• Privacy vs. transparency trade-offs
• Individual vs. collective rights
• Indigenous data sovereignty questions
• Cross-cultural feature design

Code Example:

const { PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator } = require('./services');

// Detect value conflict
if (involvesValueConflict(decision)) {
  const result = await PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator.deliberate({
    decision: decision.description,
    conflictingValues: decision.values,
    stakeholders: decision.affectedCommunities,
    context: decision.context,
    requireConsensus: false, // Legitimate disagreement OK
    documentRationale: true
  });

  // Log the outcome
  await logDeliberation(result);
}

---

🧪 Testing Checklist

Before Merging Code

• Run value conflict tests: npm run test:pluralism
• Check for hardcoded moral assumptions
• Verify PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator integration
• Review for Western bias in defaults
• Confirm indigenous frameworks are foundational, not supplementary
• Check that value trade-offs are surfaced, not hidden

Review Questions

1. Whose values are embedded in this code?
2. What happens if a community has different values?
3. Are we imposing a framework or enabling choice?
4. Would this work for indigenous communities? Collectivist cultures? Different legal systems?
5. Is there a "right answer" built in that shouldn't be?

---

📋 Pull Request Template Addition

## Pluralism Check (inst_081)

- [ ] No unified moral framework imposed
- [ ] Value conflicts presented to humans (not auto-resolved)
- [ ] Competing values are not ranked
- [ ] No cultural framework treated as superior
- [ ] Indigenous frameworks are foundational, not supplementary
- [ ] PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator used for value conflicts
- [ ] Multiple valid perspectives acknowledged

**Value Conflicts Identified**: [List any value conflicts this PR introduces]

**Deliberation Approach**: [How are conflicts surfaced/resolved?]

---

🎯 Values Alignment

This checklist enforces:

• Community Principle: "No paywalls or vendor lock-in" (inst_080)
• Indigenous Data Sovereignty: CARE principles are foundational (inst_004)
• Pluralistic Deliberation: Multiple legitimate frameworks coexist (inst_081)
• Te Tiriti Framework: Honored in data governance (inst_006)

---

📚 References

• src/services/PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator.service.js
• public/values.html - Core philosophy
• docs/governance/CARE_PRINCIPLES.md
• docs/governance/TE_TIRITI_FRAMEWORK.md

---

Last Updated: 2025-10-25 Maintained By: Tractatus Governance Team License: Apache 2.0 (https://codeberg.org/mysovereignty/tractatus-framework)