ICI Decision Record 1
- Andrea Mazingo
- 3 days ago
- 2 min read
How We Make Decisions at ICI -- and Why That Matters
Published April 2, 2026
Most governance frameworks tell you what they believe. ICI shows you how we decide.
Today we're publishing our first formal Decision Record -- a document that captures, in full, how ICI is reaching a foundational conclusion about how epistemic integrity operates within our framework. Not just the conclusion. The process. The disagreements. The uncertainties. The names of everyone who contributed, what they said, and what kind of knowledge they brought to it.
This is what we mean when we say governance must become infrastructural.
What a Decision Record is
A Decision Record is among ICI's primary accountability mechanism for consequential organizational decisions. It is not a press release. It is not a summary of conclusions. It is a living document that captures:
The problem being decided and why it matters
Every input considered, labeled by epistemic type -- empirical, analytical, experiential, philosophical, spiritual, synthetic/integrative, and cultural
The governing constraints that shaped the decision
The options evaluated and how they performed against those constraints
The outcome, the rationale, and the formal dissent log
The names of everyone who contributed -- including those who declined, those who haven't yet responded, and those whose input is still pending
That last part is important. Transparency isn't just about what we decided. It's about who we asked, what they said, and what we did with it.
What this first decision was about
Decision Record 1 addresses a foundational question: how should ICI be deployed to maximize voluntary adoption while maintaining epistemic integrity, translatability, and inclusion of plural human knowledge systems?
In plain language: how do we stay rigorous without becoming exclusionary? How do we welcome lived experience, spiritual knowledge, and community wisdom into a governance framework without losing the ability to distinguish a well-grounded claim from a preferred narrative?
The answer we reached -- through genuine disagreement, careful deliberation, and input from attorneys, academics, engineers, philosophers, policy advisors, and an AI system -- is a hybrid model. One that labels every input by type, holds each to the standard of evidence appropriate to it, and refuses to let any single way of knowing define reality alone.
Who contributed
This record includes reflections from ICI's Steering Council, independent feedback from legal professionals, computer scientists, policy advisors, and governance scholars, and input from an AI integration partner. Some contributors are named alongside their inputs. Some were invited and have not yet responded. Some opinions are expected after this initial April 2, 2026 publication and will be added upon receipt.
The record will remain open. That is by design, allowing for transparent, recursive refinement over time.
Why we're publishing this
Because trust doesn't come from being told a system is fair. It comes from being able to verify that claim.
ICI exists to build the governance infrastructure that makes institutional decisions traceable, contestable, and coherent with stated values. We cannot credibly ask institutions to show their work if we do not show ours.
This is ours.
[Decision Record 1 embedded below]
Comments