Value and Justice Engine · DÇM‑0.3

Why is an engine needed?

Time, expertise, care, relationships, space and finance can contribute differently to one shared result. Looking only at the visible output or at money can hide preparation and continuity; relying only on goodwill can leave a person’s right to private discretion.

The Value and Justice Engine does not settle this tension through an automatic verdict. It brings forward what happened in a specific piece of work, what supports the account and which justice checks remain open before people make a reasoned decision.

Justice begins with channel and scope, not a score

Every contribution event is first separated into direct rights, common contribution and common funds. Pay, rent, expenses, debt, principal and contracted compensation remain in their own rights record; a donation does not become a personal score. Only the uncompensated part knowingly opened to common assessment enters the engine.

A record begins in one primary scope: task, circle or ecosystem. Circle coordination cannot be copied into every task, and founding infrastructure cannot be copied into every circle. Ownership of a right also remains distinct from allocation: a person can remain its visible owner while freely directing its economic counterpart to a reserve.

• Direct right + common contribution + common fund must close at 100 per cent.
• The same value cannot be counted again in another channel or scope.
• Capital is a real contribution, but it does not purchase shared will or unlimited control.

Four dimensions and twenty explainable criteria

A contribution is not reduced to one intuitive number. Work examines time, intensity, expertise actually applied, invisible preparation and responsibility. Risk looks only at financial, legal, relational, opportunity and irreversible-commitment exposure that remains with the person after protections.

Value created considers necessity, replacement burden, net economic effect, quality–access–common-good impact and the loss that would arise without the contribution. Continuity considers the duration of benefit, maintenance and follow-through, bounded availability, resilience in disruption and transfer of knowledge. Each dimension contains five criteria.

Zero is not the same as Not Applicable

Zero means the criterion is relevant but the contribution did not occur, so it remains in the average. Not Applicable means the criterion does not belong to this kind of contribution; a reason is required and the criterion leaves the average. This prevents an irrelevant measure from unfairly lowering the result.

Score and evidence confidence remain separate. Missing, limited, sufficient, strong or conflicting support describes how ready the assessment is; it is not a hidden multiplier. A score of four needs at least sufficient support, while five requires strong support and independent review.

The safety path from a number to a human decision

At least two independent reviewers complete their first assessments without seeing one another’s scores. Large differences, conflicts of interest, high-impact records and objections trigger reconciliation and, when required, a third review.

Four Justice Gates—economic separation, double-counting, impartial evidence-based assessment, and participant visibility and objection—must be complete before a record can be ready for finalisation. Even that readiness is not automatic payment; period closing, actually distributable resources and an authorised economic decision remain separate.