# Quorum Mode

Use Quorum Mode when the user needs an independent, multi-lens decision review,
not a generic critique. This local pattern adapts the useful structure from
`glichtenthal/the-quorum` without requiring its separate runtime.

## When To Use

- high-stakes product, career, business, research, teaching, or publishing decisions
- conflicting signals where one normal critique would flatten tradeoffs
- plans that need risk, evidence, feasibility, ethics, and audience lenses
- user explicitly asks for a council, quorum, board, panel, sparring review, or red-team synthesis

Do not use Quorum Mode for short copy edits, simple fact checks, or tasks where
one focused Critical Compass audit is enough.

## Process

1. Intake the decision:
   - decision to make
   - options
   - desired outcome
   - constraints
   - irreversible risks
   - evidence already available
   - deadline or action window
2. Assign 4-6 independent lenses. Use only lenses that fit the decision.
3. Let each lens give:
   - strongest argument
   - main risk
   - evidence it would require
   - recommendation
4. Run a peer-check pass:
   - where lenses disagree
   - where everyone may share the same blind spot
   - what missing evidence would change the recommendation
5. Synthesize as chair:
   - recommended action
   - decision rationale
   - what to do now
   - what not to do yet
   - follow-up checkpoint

## Default Lenses

Choose from:

- Strategy: does this move the main goal?
- Evidence: what is known, assumed, or missing?
- User/Audience: who benefits or gets confused?
- Feasibility: what can actually ship with current resources?
- Risk/Security: what can go wrong operationally, legally, financially, or reputationally?
- Ethics/Trust: what would make this fair, transparent, and non-manipulative?
- Learning: what skill, feedback, or transfer will this build?
- Maintenance: what future burden does this create?

## Output Shape

```markdown
Mode: Critical Compass / Quorum Mode
Decision:
Options:
Recommendation:

## Lens Reviews
| Lens | Strongest argument | Main risk | Evidence needed | Vote |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

## Disagreement And Blind Spots

## Chair Synthesis
- Do now:
- Do not do yet:
- Verification checkpoint:
```

Keep it decision-oriented. Do not roleplay named people unless the user
explicitly supplies those roles and wants that format.
