The essence of this text
Calibration is not about making scores look attractive. It keeps every result—including a high number—inside boundaries of rights, scope, evidence and justice.
This living guide brings together the public DÇM sources and publishable decisions from the working notebook. It explains the method, version difference and verified lessons rather than republishing raw development records or personal data; the reference PDF remains unchanged in Turkish.
Why test through scenarios?
An engine is not fair if it works only for the expected case. Contracted work, invisible preparation, coordination, partly paid space, relationship networks, care, donation, finance, conflicts of interest and founding infrastructure were chosen to test different boundaries under the same rules.
Each case preserves its assumptions, channel and scope decision, engine inputs, numerical output and remaining justice question. New field rounds can be added under the same scenario number without deleting earlier outcomes.
What did the ten cases show at a glance?
Two records produced no score because they were routed correctly: contracted teaching remained a direct right, and an unconditional donation remained a common fund. Six task or circle contributions were suitable for assessment. One high-scoring record was blocked by incomplete Justice Gates, while founding work remained in ecosystem scope rather than entering a task pool.
The cards below show the DÇM‑0.3 regression outcomes. A number without its scope and decision state can mislead.
What does 320.68 mean—and not mean?
The illustrative total for six eligible task and circle contributions—S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S8—is 320.68. It supports relative comparison inside one hypothetical pool; it is not TRY, BenAkçe, BenGram or a distributable resource.
S9 scored 84.20 yet remained draft and blocked because impartiality and visibility were incomplete. S10 scored 97.60, but this is not a real entitlement: it tests how founding ideas, infrastructure and long preparation can remain visible at ecosystem level.
Why did CAL‑001 keep the weights?
Running the same S1–S10 inputs through DÇM‑0.2 and DÇM‑0.3 produced a numerical difference of 0.00. The first calibration therefore strengthened when a number can support a trustworthy human decision instead of moving the scores artificially.
DÇM‑0.3 added Not Applicable, evidence confidence, two blind reviewers, reconciliation, third review, channel closure, visibility and objection, and an append-only version trail. DÇM‑0.2 remains a read-only comparison reference rather than an active decision tool.
Justice lessons from the first round
Care and follow-through remained visible; finance counted only residual unprotected risk; a donation did not create personal superiority. A high score could not pass the gates, and founding work did not leak into every circle as an automatic share.
Directing the founder’s possible economic counterpart to a solidarity reserve was recorded as a voluntary allocation that did not erase ownership. The model can therefore recognise invisible work and allow its owner to direct it freely towards a shared future.
S1–S10 · DÇM‑0.3 regression summary
Ten scenarios, four kinds of outcome
Read every score together with its scope, value channel and decision state. All cases are hypothetical.
Contracted teaching service
Task · direct right
Routed to a separate channelPreparation and method beyond contracted pay
Task · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decisionCircle coordination and continuity
Circle · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decisionSpace: 70% paid and 30% contributed
Task · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decisionParticipant access and relationship network
Task · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decisionCare, accessibility and follow-through
Circle · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decisionUnconditional solidarity-fund donation
Circle · common fund
Routed to a separate channelInterest-free bridge finance and residual risk
Task · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decisionRelated reviewer and incomplete gates
Task · common contribution
Draft and blockedFounding idea, infrastructure and long preparation
Ecosystem · common contribution
Ready for a finalisation decision320.68 is only the hypothetical comparison total of six eligible task and circle contributions; it is not economic value.
Reflect together
Which difficult or counter-example is still missing from the cases needed to test our real pilot?
Form your own answer first. Then identify where explanation, objection or a new practical test is needed.
Bring your note into the app ↗Dayanisma_Cemberi_Motoru_Kalibrasyon_ve_Senaryo_Defteri_0_1.pdf
Calibration 0.1 · Ten hypothetical cases
Authored English web guide: 6 September 2026.
The public Turkish PDF remains unchanged; publishable decisions from the living record are updated in this guide.