boundary test template

Boundary Test Template

Document Positioning: This template is used to test the consistency, operability, and failure risks of Stairway Universalism in extreme cases. Boundary tests are not meant to defend existing positions, but to actively seek conflicts, blind spots, and collapse points between mechanisms.

I. Case Description

Describe the case in as concrete a manner as possible, without rushing to conclusions.

Should include:

Involved subjects
Involved authority stair positions
Involved AI systems or infrastructure
Facts triggering the conflict
Possible damages

II. Conflicting Principles

List the manifesto principles or mechanism principles that conflict with each other in this case.

Common conflicts include:

Capability certification vs. legal responsibility capacity
Safety encapsulation vs. right to know
Audit transparency vs. privacy protection
Individual responsibility vs. platform responsibility vs. institutional responsibility
Capability development channel openness vs. public safety boundary
Technological autonomy vs. global reciprocity

List the mechanism documents that must be invoked, and explain what functions they serve in this case.

May cite:

Permission Ladder (stair position definitions, cross-threshold rules, global dimensions)
Capability Certification (three-dimensional assessment, parallel paths, bias monitoring)
Accountability Chain (four-layer responsibility, scapegoat prevention)
Audit Transparency (three-layer audit, privacy balance)
Threshold Setting Principles (three types of thresholds, trigger actions)
Baseline Service Quality (quality baseline, chronic under-provisioning monitoring)
Self-Negation Clause (collapse indicators, immune layer design)

IV. Possible Determination Paths

List at least two optional determination paths, rather than directly giving a single answer.

Each path should explain:

What value it protects
What value it sacrifices
Which mechanism it strengthens
What new risks it may create

V. Worst Consequences

Deduce the worst consequences of each path. Boundary tests must ask: If this judgment is institutionalized, how will it be abused?

Need to specifically check:

Will it create capability discrimination?
Will it create technocracy?
Will it cause basic service users to be gently abandoned?
Will it allow platforms, institutions, or system designers to evade responsibility?
Will it make appeal mechanisms formalistic?
Will it allow safety discourse to override political justice?

VI. Mechanism Revision Needs

If the case exposes mechanism gaps, it should clearly identify which document needs to be modified or added.

Optional conclusions include:

Existing mechanisms are sufficient to handle, no modification needed
Existing mechanisms are directionally correct, but need supplementary operational details
Existing mechanisms conflict with each other, need priority ordering
The case exposes a new problem, requiring a new mechanism document
The case triggers collapse indicators in the Self-Negation Clause

VII. Tentative Conclusion

The conclusion must remain corrigible.

Suggested format:

Under current mechanisms, this case should be tentatively handled according to Path A, because it best protects the X baseline; but this path will sacrifice Y and create risk Z. Therefore, this conclusion is only valid when the following conditions are met: ...

VIII. Open Questions

List unresolved problems. Do not force closure of theory to complete the case.

Open questions should distinguish between:

Problems that can be solved through mechanism design
Problems that need empirical data testing
Problems that need further political philosophical argumentation
Questions that current theory cannot answer