# Omniforum: shared understanding, conversation and decisions

Version of 31 October 2026. This document develops the principles of the manifesto that concern Omniforum: how we want to help people understand one another, leave a lasting body of work after a conversation and make decisions together. It describes the direction in which the prototype is to develop. Each capability described requires a separate acceptance trial, and a description of the intended experience does not mean that it is available today. We add the results of the trials in chapter 9.

*Translated into English by digital intelligence from the Polish original of 31 October 2026. Where the versions differ, the Polish text prevails.*

## 1. What Omniforum is and why it is being created

Omniforum is to be a shared space for conversation where anyone can speak on any topic and be heard. It is being designed by the Novus Ignis Foundation in Poznań with people from every part of the world in mind, and the foundation wants to make it available as a digital public good with open source code. In it, digital intelligence helps, always under the author's control, to break a statement down into individual thoughts and to connect them with sources and with other people's thoughts. The conversations that participants choose to share leave behind a body of work you can return to.

Omniforum is being created because in a stream of quick comments good arguments easily get lost, and the same disputes keep starting all over again. In a single sentence we convey many assumptions, values and expectations. As long as we understand each other, that is enough. When a misunderstanding arises or we need to decide together what to do, it helps to see what each of us means by the same words, what unites us and at which point our lines of reasoning diverge.

In Omniforum we want people to be able to:

- organize their own thought and, before publishing, check whether the interpretation proposed by the model conveys what they mean;
- understand someone else's statement together with its assumptions, values and sources;
- compare positions and see both shared goals and the point where the difference of opinion begins;
- return to an issue after a week or after a year and see only what has changed;
- return to their own past statements and see how their thinking has changed, with the right to change their mind;
- follow everyday interests, such as cooking, gardening or repairs, and compare solutions that have been tried;
- prepare an idea for a shared decision: describe it on an idea card, gather arguments and, once voting exists, put it to the community's vote.

The point is not to pick the winner of a dispute. An argument that challenges our position can be just as valuable as one that supports it, and you can also bring an idea so that others help find a better one. You can get to know an issue from a short story, go deeper into a chosen argument and clearly end the visit. We consider a visit successful when afterward someone understands the issue better and can calmly return to their own affairs. Neither the number of clicks nor the time spent on the site is a measure of benefit.

Breaking a statement down into individual thoughts is not meant to turn a conversation into a dry chart. In a dispute we often get irritated with each other not out of ill will, but because one sentence carries several assumptions and each person responds to different ones. The simple question “So you mean this and that, do I understand you correctly?” changes the tone of the conversation on both sides. The whole technical layer of Omniforum is meant to support precisely this reflex.

A conversation is meant to leave room for changing one's mind without humiliation: you can admit a mistake, ask another question or finish without declaring agreement. A participant's dignity does not depend on whether they accept a conclusion; the assessment of a claim depends on its justification.

Omniforum complements Suveria, the private space for work with digital intelligence: a thought can first be refined privately and then consciously brought into a shared conversation. The values from which both projects grow are described in the foundation's [manifesto](manifest.md). In what follows we show in turn:

- how we break a statement down into thoughts and preserve their source (chapters 2 and 3);
- how this help can work in other services (4);
- how issues, issue maps, idea cards and initiatives come about (5);
- what new medium can grow out of this (6);
- how we protect privacy (7);
- how we make shared decisions (8);
- how we will check whether all this actually helps (9).

### 1.1. Everyday interests and a calm return to a topic

Omniforum is meant to help not only with public matters, but also with practical knowledge and everyday interests: caring for plants, cooking, repairs or learning new skills. Take someone who wants their ivy to put out the longest possible shoots. In Omniforum they can follow this topic and read what others have tried: which location, watering and fertilizing worked, and what failed. Each such experience is to be recorded together with its author and source, and similar advice from different conversations is to end up in one place instead of getting lost in separate threads. This is how an issue map comes about: an organized collection of experiences, arguments and open questions that you can return to. How we build it from individual thoughts and connect it with sources is described in chapters 2, 3 and 5.

Solutions can be compared according to one's own criteria. One person cares about speed, another about low cost, and a third about a plant that will survive neglect, so we are not looking for one answer for everyone. With each experience we preserve the conditions under which it was gained, for example the amount of sunlight, the temperature in the apartment or the type of soil. We also distinguish what someone observed from their explanation of why it happened. This makes it possible to set different methods side by side and choose the one that fits one's own situation.

When someone returns to a topic after a week or after a year, they are meant to see only what has changed since their last visit: new experiences, corrections, results of trials and questions that still remain open. They decide for themselves how often they want to review what is new and whether to receive notifications at all. After reviewing the changes, they get a clear message that they have seen everything new on this topic, and they can calmly return to their own affairs.

### 1.2. What is free

Reading Omniforum, publishing statements, dividing them into thoughts and atoms by hand, adding sources, consultations and voting are free, and money does not grant greater reach or a stronger voice. A cost arises only when someone uses help from a model, for example to break down a longer text. It is covered by the person's own balance in Suveria or by a model on their own device, and people without a balance can use a free queue, which the foundation serves with spare computing power within the limits of the support budget and earmarked donations. When the foundation maintains its own machine, we devote its spare power to such tasks, in a queue and without a guaranteed time. As long as we use only a confidential API, there is no spare power, because every operation costs money; in that case we fund the tasks of people without a balance only from donations earmarked for this purpose, until they run out, and we show this in the register. Once confirmed, a breakdown goes into the shared body of work, so no one pays again to open it.

### 1.3. Glossary

The most important names used in this document, explained in more detail in the chapters indicated:

- **Atom:** the smallest building block of meaning, a single concept or one specific thing, named with one word or a few (chapter 2).
- **Molecule:** a thought built from atoms connected by bonds: a claim, a question, a value or a condition (chapter 2).
- **Label:** a word by which we name an atom; one atom can have many labels, also in different languages (chapter 2).
- **Bond:** a relation connecting atoms within a molecule, such as “is part of,” “has the property,” “causes” or “prevents” (chapter 2).
- **Chain:** a sequence of molecules in which premises lead to a conclusion (chapter 5).
- **Issue** (*Causa*): a question or matter that someone wants to return to because they want to understand, compare or do something together (section 5.1).
- **Issue map** (*Mappa Causae*): a compilation of the chains of different people, including mutually contradictory ones, together with sources and open questions, that you can return to (chapters 1.1 and 5).
- **Idea card** (*Charta Ideae*): a view that shows where we want to get to and what the next step is, with the idea's status and answers to eight questions (section 5.2).
- **Initiative** (*Inceptum*): a proposal for a specific action that grows out of an issue map and an idea card (section 5.3).
- **Omnium:** the open database of Omniforum's public body of work, available to other applications through OmniAPI (chapter 4).
- **Ignis:** the stage of first sharing a thought; the manifesto calls the moment of publication itself the Ignis Ceremony (*Caerimonia Ignis*; chapter 3).
- **Formatio:** the stage after publication in which the community considers the thought, adds arguments, sources and caveats, and looks for consensus (chapter 3).
- **Consensus:** a shared agreement of the community, stated with its version, its scope, the people who confirmed it and dissenting opinions (chapter 3).
- **Terra Incognita:** a voluntary ceremony in which we name the limit of what we can justify today and consciously begin looking for an answer to a new question (at the design stage, chapter 3).
- **Principium:** adopting a principle as one's own, into one's Personal Canon (*Canon Personalis*; section 5.6).

## 2. Atoms, molecules and their origin

We break a statement down on two levels. An atom is the smallest building block of meaning: a single concept or one specific thing, named with one word or a few, for example “drought,” “tree” or “our street.” We assign each atom a nature, that is, whether it is a person, a place, an event, a process, a value or a concept. Atoms help pinpoint exactly what we are talking about and notice when different people understand something different by the same word. A molecule is a thought built from atoms connected by bonds such as “is part of,” “has the property,” “causes” or “prevents”: a claim, a question, a value or a condition. It does not have to be a short sentence, because the meaning may require a caveat, an example or context. In a conversation a molecule can be supported with an argument or challenged, while an atom by itself is neither true nor false.

An atom is a meaning, not a word. It has a permanent identifier and a definition, and the words by which we name it are its labels. One atom can have many labels: names in different languages, synonyms and context-dependent expressions. Drought is “susza” in Polish, “Dürre” in German and “siccitas” in Latin. A resident of Warszawska Street will call it “our street,” and someone else “the hood.” This allows people who use different words, also in different languages, to talk about the same thing, and whether a label really conveys an atom can itself become a topic of conversation. Where an established Latin name exists, for example in biology, medicine or law, we add it as a reference label.

Linking an expression to an atom is a proposal that the author confirms, like the whole division of their statement. It can also be private information: the fact that “our street” means Warszawska Street reveals where someone lives, so the author decides whether others will see this link.

An atom's definition is also recorded in Omniforum: it consists of other atoms and the relations between them, just as an encyclopedia entry is described by other words. This makes it visible what exactly we mean by a given concept, and the definition can be considered and improved like any other thought. Such a record does not depend on any language, and alongside it the definition can also be given as ordinary text, in many languages. When an atom used in the definitions of other atoms changes, we mark those definitions for review.

Every breakdown, assignment and link can be made by hand, without a model, with the same tools and with the same result on the map. This is laborious, but it gives full insight into how something came about. The model proposes the same steps for convenience, and next to each element it is visible whether it was made by hand or from a model's proposal, and from which model. We do not treat the manual path as a fallback mode: we maintain it in every version and check in trials whether a whole issue can still be worked through this way.

With each molecule and each use of an atom we record where they come from: from which text, from which version of it and from exactly which place, in what language and in what surroundings. This means you can always go back to the original and read a sentence in its context. We treat the same words written in two different texts as two separate occurrences, because in different surroundings they may mean something different; only a confirmed link connects them to the same atom. We also record who prepared the breakdown of a statement and when, and if a model helped, which model and with which version of the instructions.

We distinguish three layers:

- **Source statement:** what was actually published or submitted for analysis.
- **Proposed interpretation:** proposed by a model or a person, with the author and the degree of verification indicated.
- **Confirmation of meaning:** the author recognizes a specific version of the analysis as consistent with their own intention.

A confirmation says only that the author recognizes their thought in the breakdown. It does not prove that they are right, does not mean that others agree with them, and is not a vote in a ballot. The author can correct the breakdown or leave their statement whole, without dividing it.

A reader can break down someone else's statement in their own way, without waiting for the author. We show such a breakdown as the reader's interpretation, marked with their name or pseudonym. Only a version the author has confirmed is shown as the breakdown of the author's statement. The author's silence does not mean consent.

The point of reference for portability is open annotation standards, such as the W3C Web Annotation data model, which describes linking annotations to a resource and to a fragment of it.[^web-annotation] It is not a ready-made model of all of Omniforum's relations.

## 3. From a natural statement to a shared analysis

In Omniforum a thought passes through successive stages. The first is the Ignis stage, that is, the first sharing of a thought. A thought can originate in Omniforum: in that case the author, in the Ignis workshop (*Officina Ignis*), breaks it down into molecules and atoms with the help of digital intelligence, confirms that the interpretation conveys their intention and consciously publishes it; this chapter describes that process. It can also come from Suveria, where the author refined it in their own private workshop of thought; in that case they publish it right away, without the Ignis workshop. In both cases the manifesto calls the moment of publication the Ignis Ceremony, and after it the Formatio stage begins: the community considers the thought, adds arguments, sources and caveats, and looks for consensus. We call a shared agreement Consensus, and when there is no agreement, an honestly described dispute is also a result of this work. With a shared agreement we state its version, its scope, the people who confirmed it and dissenting opinions; we do not count silence as agreement.

We talk naturally. The Ignis workshop begins with ordinary text or a selected passage, and the user sets the goal: understanding, extracting arguments, preparing their own response or comparing positions. Arranging the map by hand remains an option for those who want it.

Digital intelligence proposes a breakdown and, next to each molecule, shows which part of the statement it derived it from. The author does not have to check everything one by one: the model is to point out the places where it may have strayed from the intention or where the statement can be interpreted in several ways. The author corrects these places and approves the whole. The entire breakdown can be accepted at once only when it is clear exactly what is being accepted and it is possible to go back to the details. In trials we will check whether approval takes more time than breaking the statement down oneself.

A model that proposes a breakdown has its own habits: it smooths out unusual phrasing and makes different voices sound alike, and a ready-made proposal is easy to accept unchanged. That is why the path without a model's help is of equal standing, and from time to time we compare breakdowns prepared with and without a model's help.

Example: the statement “It's worth planting trees on our street if we choose drought-resistant species” contains two molecules connected by a condition. The first, “it's worth planting trees on our street,” connects the atoms “tree” and “our street.” The second, “we choose drought-resistant species,” connects the atoms “species” and “drought” with the bond “resistant to.” The statement must not be reduced to an unconditional “It's worth planting trees on our street,” because the condition remains part of the meaning. If the model adds that the author considers drought a problem in the area, we mark this as the model's inference, not the author's words.

We do not break everything down at once. We start a breakdown when it helps with a specific task, and only as deep as necessary. The first proposal can leave longer phrases intact, for example “drought-resistant species,” and the author or a reader breaks them down further where the meaning depends on a single concept or where it may become the subject of a dispute. The less unnecessary division, the lower the computing cost, the less work for the reader and the fewer mistaken connections.

We are also considering a second, voluntary ceremony: a moment in which we name the limit of what we can justify today and consciously begin looking for an answer to a new question. Possible explanations are then marked as hypotheses. We call it Terra Incognita, just as old cartographers marked lands not yet explored on their maps. We have yet to settle its form.

## 4. Help with understanding where people already talk

When we watch a video or read an article, today we are above all recipients. At most we can add a comment underneath, where it easily gets lost among others. We want people to be able to say, at a specific passage of a text or a specific moment of a recording: I disagree with this, I have an argument or a source for it. Such a comment is to go where it can be noticed and considered: to the issue map in Omniforum and, if the author or the service uses our add-on, also to them. Then the recipient becomes a participant.

Omniforum is to be a place where scattered conversations come together into a whole: thoughts from different statements, their sources, arguments and the relationships between them go onto shared issue maps. People, however, talk in many places at once: on social networks, on forums, under articles, on mailing lists and in many other places. We do not want to move them all into one service. We want help with mutual understanding to be available wherever people want to come to an understanding, and Omniforum's body of work to be able to serve there as well.

Such help works in two directions. From a conversation to Omniforum: the author can break their own statement down into molecules and atoms, check whether the interpretation proposed by the model conveys their intention and consciously bring it into a shared map, and a reader can prepare an interpretation of someone else's statement, marked as the reader's interpretation and linked to the source. From Omniforum to a conversation: at the user's request, the add-on can show that the issue has already been discussed, what arguments and sources were raised earlier and where the difference of opinion begins, so that a dispute does not have to start all over again. In doing so it uses Omnium (Latin for “of all”), the open database of Omniforum's public body of work, through OmniAPI, a documented interface for other applications.

We are planning two routes. A service's administrator can build in the add-on, for example a button next to the input field or an embedded module; whether and to what extent they do so depends solely on their decision. Where a service has no such add-on, an open browser extension is to work. The extension helps only the person who installed it, works on what that person sees and selects, and does not change the service or what its other users see. If the user wants to bring the result into the conversation on the service, they do so themselves, according to that service's rules. Existing annotation tools, such as Hypothesis, show that working through an extension and through integration with a website is possible.[^hypothesis] The open W3C annotation standard, which we discuss in chapter 2, makes it possible to point to both a passage of text and a time range in a recording.[^web-annotation] Division into molecules and atoms and the confirmation of intention remain our own separate design task.

Proposed operation of the add-on:

1. The user selects text and sees what scope will be read, by which model and where.
2. They receive a private proposal of an analysis, which they can correct or reject.
3. They can copy the result, keep it privately or prepare a publication in Omniforum.
4. Before publication they see the source, the authorship of the analysis, the rights to the material, the scope of visibility and any data about other people.
5. They decide separately about inclusion in a research dataset and separately about use for training models.

A service administrator building in the add-on does not replace the user's decision to send content. The extension requests the narrowest possible permissions and does not send browsing history, a whole inbox or the content of neighboring conversations in the background; by default it analyzes only the selected material. Searching for earlier conversations on a given issue is also started by the user. Statements from private conversations also concern other people, so before anything is moved outside such a conversation, the add-on is to remind the user of this clearly. A local model can be one of the options, if quality and hardware requirements allow it.

Omniforum is to be a community project: its body of work comes from what people themselves bring into it. We do not plan to automatically collect statements from the internet in order to break them down into molecules and atoms without their authors' knowledge, nor to build profiles of people from them. The fact that a text is available on the internet does not settle the right to share it further, to profile people or to train models on it. We would consider automatically analyzing statements from another service only if that service allowed it and every author whose statements would be affected had agreed to it beforehand. Anyone can, however, bring a public document or statement into a conversation and discuss it with reference to the source, to an appropriate extent and without attributing to its author approval of the analysis.

## 5. Issues, their maps and the story of an idea

Molecules form larger wholes. Molecules are connected by relations: justification, caveat, condition, example and anticipated consequence. We call a sequence of molecules in which premises lead to a conclusion a chain; at each step we record what rule it rests on, what assumptions it makes and where it has gaps. An issue map sets side by side the chains of different people, including mutually contradictory ones. On the issue of trees on our street, one chain may lead from shade and coolness during heat waves to the conclusion that they are worth planting, and another from the cost of watering and roots under the sidewalk to the conclusion that shrubs would be better. When the same word means something different to the participants, we record it as separate atoms with the same label, so the source of the misunderstanding is visible right away. Each relation can be a proposal to be checked, and similarity of words helps search for connections, but it does not prove that two thoughts mean the same or that one follows from the other.

The map lets you quickly see what the conversation is about and get to the original statement at any moment. Its summary, that is, the synthesis, shows how the material was selected, preserves important minority positions and indicates what data is missing. It does not have to reduce a dispute to one sentence that everyone will sign: an honestly described dispute is just as valuable a fruit of a conversation as a shared solution.

An issue map opens calmly: first one main conclusion with a short description of its strength, and below it a few paths of justification to choose from. You can expand the one that matches your own doubt, go back or finish; the rest of the map stays at hand.

With a conclusion we show separately how strong and independent the evidence is, how well justified the conclusion itself is and how broadly people have agreed with it. Full agreement among participants based on a single unverified account still leaves the conclusion weak. We have yet to work out the scale for these assessments and test it in a benchmark; we do not add apparent uncertainty to well-established facts.

The manifesto (section 5.1) divides shared deliberation into facts, values and hypotheses. In Omniforum this corresponds to how a molecule is marked: whether it speaks of something verifiable, of a need or a value, or of a hypothesis. The idea card gathers these markings in its status (working, design, hypothesis, vision).

A story of an idea can grow out of a map: an accessible guide that leads the reader step by step through what the question is about, what has already been established together, where the differences are, what they rest on and what could change the assessment. A good story gives a moment of closure: it is clear what has been established and where the dispute is still going on. When a new source appears, an important condition changes or an error comes to light, the conversation can be clearly reopened.

Every change remains in the history. Merging, splitting and withdrawing molecules and atoms preserves references and earlier versions, so it is possible to reconstruct how the current form of the map came about. When a source changes, we mark the analyses that rest on it as requiring review, instead of quietly changing their meaning.

When several publications repeat the same original report, we mark this, and when the origin cannot be established, we say that it is undetermined. A correction of a source points to the analyses that need to be checked again; it does not automatically invalidate entire conclusions or differing interpretations.

### 5.1. An issue as a point of return to a question

An issue is a question or matter that someone wants to return to because they want to understand, compare or do something together. A molecule remains a single thought, while an issue gathers many molecules, chains, sources and documents around one need. An issue can be a public question, for example about trees on the street, but also a personal one, for example how to prepare for the next conversation with the bank: you can attach documents, earlier answers and further doubts to it.

A permanent link to an issue leads to everything that concerns it: the question, the context, sources, arguments, the current state of knowledge and the history of changes. For each matter we indicate whether it concerns an event, a supposition, a choice of values or a plan, what time and what conditions it concerns, and what its assessment rests on. A vote can show a decision or the participants' positions, but the truth of claims is settled by sources and verification, not by the number of votes.

Recording a question is not yet a decision to act. When someone takes on a task, we establish separately who is responsible for it, what the next step is and what we expect. Postponement or refusal leaves a justification and a way back to the topic. Participants choose for themselves who sees their issue: what they are working on privately in Suveria remains separate from material they consciously share in Omniforum. A private issue is handled in Suveria; it goes to Omniforum only when the author shares it with a group or publicly. A shared register of issues is a direction we will test in a separate project and trial.

### 5.2. Idea card: from a picture of the future to a first trial

Bold visions are easily dismissed as detached from reality, and cautious plans as lacking a goal. The idea card connects the two: it shows where we want to get to and what the next step is. It gives the idea's status (“working,” “design,” “hypothesis” or “vision”) and answers eight questions:

1. **What is it?** A definition, the boundaries of the concept and a way of recognizing the expected result.
2. **What for?** Whose needs it meets, how it protects dignity and what an ordinary day looks like for a person who uses it.
3. **Why?** The problem in today's world, described with facts and sources.
4. **How, and from what?** The mechanism, existing resources that can be used instead of building from scratch, and the next step.
5. **What would have to change?** Technical, legal and economic conditions, as well as beliefs: which ones we commonly hold today and which ones would be needed.
6. **What balance, and what other paths?** Who gains, who bears the costs and risks of the transition, and what sensible alternatives there are.
7. **What trial?** What we will check first, with the participation of people who will benefit, those who will bear the costs and those whom the solution does not suit, and what result will lead us to change our minds.
8. **Has something similar happened before?** Transformations that once seemed impossible, together with what made them possible and the differences from our situation. A similar example shows that such a path is possible, but does not prove that we will succeed.

A card is not a single molecule, but a view of many connected concepts, claims, sources, conditions and trials. Cards can be connected into a longer path; we then show the shared resources and dependencies, and test a chosen section as a whole, because confirming the individual parts does not yet confirm the whole path. The questions about the goal, the method and the necessary changes correspond to Erik Olin Wright's three criteria for “real utopias”: whether a solution is desirable, whether it can work and whether it can be reached.[^wright] The card's history shows how the bridge between vision and reality gained further spans. The first cards are to be the ideas from the foundation's manifesto.

### 5.3. From an issue to an initiative

When a conversation on an issue leads to a shared agreement on what is worth doing, an initiative, that is, a proposal for a specific action, can be founded on its basis. An initiative grows out of an issue map and an idea card, so it keeps links to the molecules, chains and sources it rests on. Its core is a clearly described goal, conditions, the proposed action and a way of checking whether it has brought the expected effect. Before it goes to a decision about shared money, it needs the green path from section 5.3 of the manifesto: grounding in facts and the community's agreement on the values it stands on.

An initiative passes through separate decisions: first a conversation about the goal and possible variants, then a decision on whether this version deserves further work, next a cost estimate and an assessment of feasibility, and finally a decision on implementation and the source of funding. Agreement on the goal does not yet settle the cost, the implementers or the deadline. A significant change of the goal, scope or budget creates a new version of the initiative and repeats the decisions it affects. Until binding voting exists, these decisions are made by the board after consultations, in the agile phase described in chapter 8.

An initiative can be funded in two ways. The foundation can pay for it from the shared budget, on the terms set out in the [Foundation Principles whitepaper](whitepaper-zasady-fundacji.md) and always with priority for Pillar I. It can also be opened to support from donors: a person or company that wants the initiative to come about covers its full cost with an earmarked payment. The payment does not give additional votes or influence over the foundation's decisions. In both cases the initiative is carried out by the foundation, which is responsible for it; we do not plan to fund projects run by people and entities outside the foundation.

An initiative accepted for implementation has responsible implementers, a budget, a deadline and acceptance criteria. After completion we publish the actual cost, the result and the conclusions, also when the trial did not succeed.

### 5.4. Recurring questions and a shared position

Individuals, teams and institutions often receive the same questions and objections in many places at once. The dashboard we are designing makes it possible to answer them once, in an organized way: it connects a position approved by the author with the questions, arguments and sources it concerns. The view shows above all the content and what is new in the objections, because the number of repetitions does not indicate the weight of an objection.

The add-on described in chapter 4 can propose linking a comment to such an answer. Automatic matching is clearly marked and can be corrected; the author of the comment sees what it has been linked to and can report: “my comment is about something else.” A new argument gets its own place, even if it resembles an earlier one. The fact that the author has replied does not yet mean that their reply has convinced the other participants.

The dashboard presents only a position confirmed by the author: a reply prepared by a model must be approved before it begins to represent them. Anyone following a thread can choose to be notified of a new reply. We want to show an example of such use, with a statement from years ago and a later change of mind, on the foundation's website.

### 5.5. Living documents and public review

We want to use the same tools for the foundation's own documents, such as the manifesto and the whitepapers. They are meant to help group recurring comments while preserving the differences, the context and the experiences of their authors. We link each objection to a specific passage of the text, so that it is possible to check the reply, add a new argument and trace where a correction came from. In this way even a large wave of criticism can turn into specific corrections instead of overwhelming the authors.

The current version of a document presents the authors' present position. The history preserves earlier wordings, the reasons for changes and the commitments made, so actions can be assessed against what was declared at a given time. A new wording makes it possible to fix mistakes, but it does not remove responsibility for earlier decisions.

We are starting with our own website. On novusignis.org, next to the manifesto and the whitepapers, you can highlight a passage and with one click prepare an email to us with a comment that already contains the quotation and a link to that place. This is a simple first step: the message goes only to the foundation, and no public conversation arises from it. Eventually, comments on our documents are to go to Omniforum, where others will be able to see and discuss them. We record comments that lead to changes in the document's history.

### 5.6. The Personal Canon in a conversation about values

The Personal Canon is a collection of principles that a person recognizes as their own. It is created in the private space of Suveria, and only the principles someone consciously shares go to Omniforum. We call adopting a principle as one's own Principium. This can be done at any stage described in chapter 3: with a freshly shared thought (Ignis), during the community's deliberation (Formatio) or after a shared agreement (Consensus). A Principium has a place in the canon also when it remains a dissenting opinion with respect to the majority.

Canons can be larger or smaller, contain one another and partly overlap. Besides a personal canon there can be a community's canon or a description of the principles of a particular tradition, and setting them side by side shows where they meet and where there is no agreement. We distinguish principles adopted as a starting point from conclusions whose premises and chain of reasoning are visible. A lack of justification or a disputed step does not cross out a principle, but points to a place for further reflection. The facts on which a principle rests come from the map and its sources; adopting a principle into a canon does not settle whether they are true.

A canon does not serve to judge people. It can, however, have a descriptive level of development: nascent (it contains at least one consciously adopted Principium), described (it is clear what exactly it adopts and what it does not yet settle), anchored (its principles are linked to an issue map and their origin is visible) or analyzed (its justifications, counterarguments and tensions between principles have been examined). We show separately to what extent the principles have a shared agreement. A specific version of a canon can be marked as publicly mature according to a transparent list of conditions: when it is analyzed, its principles have a shared agreement and their mutual consistency has been checked; the status remains open to revision. With the marking we state the version of the canon, the community that assessed it, the date and the scope of agreement. The level of a canon helps find places for further reflection, but it does not assess its author and does not affect the right to adopt principles, to take part in the conversation or to vote.

## 6. A new medium of explanation and conversation

Just as YouTube gave rise to YouTubers and podcasts to podcasters, Omniforum can give rise to a new group of creators. They will probably decide for themselves what they are called; these are people who do not merely talk about the world, but lead viewers through an issue step by step, from the sources, through the arguments, to the place where the dispute begins. Their work does not end with publication. Each step of such an explanation is linked to molecules and sources, so the viewer can stop at any point, check how something is known and join the conversation.

This medium is by nature a conversation. A reply does not go to the end of a long list of comments, but to the exact place it concerns: to a specific molecule, a step in a chain or a source. A microdebate can take place around such a place, that is, a short, organized exchange of arguments that ends in a clear state: established, disputed or data missing. The creator can respond to it, correct their explanation or honestly indicate where they disagree, and the viewer sees the story together with the replies made at each step. Anyone can also check how their own views fare when they meet the arguments of others: first privately in Suveria, and then, if they wish, publicly.

Such explanations can take various forms. An editorial channel can prepare a reading path through a treaty, a draft law, a contract or a public statement and show its arguments and possible consequences. Accessible animated stories with a narrator's voice can be created from an organized issue map. Because they are based on connected molecules and atoms rather than finished recordings, a story can be updated as new evidence comes in and translated into other languages; we want to check the faithfulness of translations together, and each part of a story leads to its source. A reader can also compare several analyses of the same material. The community will decide when to develop animated stories, in line with section 6.3 of the manifesto.

A good explanation distinguishes what is written in a document from its interpretation, from the assumptions of a forecast and from an assessment. With legal documents it states the status of the text and the date, because an explanation, even a very popular one, does not become a binding interpretation of the law by being published. When digital intelligence suggests possible consequences, each suggestion leads to a justification and is subject to verification by a person.

This medium has a few simple rules: sources are always visible, correction is easy, everyone has the right of reply, conflicts of interest are marked, and different analyses of the same issue can be compared. We value not only the authors of the most visible stories, but also the people who improve the connections between thoughts, translations and accessibility, or who restore an overlooked perspective.

A creator's reach and the support they receive from viewers do not prove that they are right. The order in which we show content has transparent rules and can be changed. We want to try out several such orders: chronological, by question, by documented contribution, that is, what an entry brings to the map and what it rests on, not the number of entries by its author, and by recognition across different opinion groups. In the last of these, we show an argument higher when it is accepted by people who judge differently on other issues. Opinion groups are calculated by the system from the ratings alone: no one chooses or names them, no one belongs to them and no one manages them. As a result, a thousand accounts rating in the same way will not raise anything that no one outside them recognizes. The effectiveness of this order has so far been tested with hundreds and thousands of participants (Polis, Community Notes), so we will try it once an issue gathers that many ratings. Statements from the open inbox, brought in without an account and without vouching, are shown in a separate layer that anyone can choose, and in every order after statements from an account or with vouching (section 8.1). Several orders side by side are meant to ensure that the whole space does not depend on a single popularity ranking. We want attention to follow what sheds light on an issue, not what stirs emotions most strongly.

In the foreground we show the content and the source with its date. We do not keep public contribution counters or rankings of people, because they encourage a race and the flooding of the map, also by bots; the history of additions and changes remains available. With a new thought you can trace how it came about in cooperation between a person and a model, to the extent the author decides to show.

## 7. Privacy, quotations and corrections

Each thought can be in one of three places: in the private space of Suveria, in a group that someone has chosen themselves, or publicly in Omniforum. A group that someone chooses themselves determines who sees the material; it is not an opinion group from chapter 6. Each of these places has its own permissions, and moving a thought further, for example from Suveria to Omniforum, always requires explicit confirmation. We limit data about other people to what is truly necessary for the issue at hand.

You do not need an account to read, and you can also speak in a conversation without an account (section 8.1). Anyone who publishes from an account can keep it under a permanent pseudonym. The author of a publication is responsible for its content, and for a statement brought in through vouching, so is the person who brought it in; we will describe the foundation's obligations as operator with regard to reports before launch.

Original statements, quotations, comments and analyses prepared by a model may have different terms of use. That is why with each material we record where the right to use it comes from and what limitations it has, instead of giving the whole a single, seemingly simple license. A change of visibility, for example from private to public, does not replace checking whether we have the right to the material.

People have a right to privacy also when someone else quotes them. If someone attributes a statement to a person without a public source, for example from a private conversation, the person named as the author can report it. Anyone can report the lack of a public source, without revealing their identity. Until the matter is clarified, such a statement is not publicly visible. If it turns out to be made up or comes from a private conversation without that person's consent, we restrict access to it. We require confirmation that the report really comes from the person concerned only when that person wants to correct the words attributed to them, so that no one can correct other people's words.

It is different with statements that have a public source, for example an article or a recording from years ago. The original remains, because people are accountable for their public words and those words can be discussed. The author can, however, add a correction or their current position next to it, and the reader will see both versions side by side: what someone said then and what they think now. At the reader's request, the add-on from chapter 4 can also show such a current position next to a quotation in an article outside Omniforum. The right to change one's mind does not erase history, but it does allow history to be supplemented.

A model can openly assess an issue differently from the shared position. It then shows the basis for the difference and checks whether such an argument is already on the map. If it is not, it proposes an entry marked as a model's proposal to be checked; neither its publication nor similar statements by other models are evidence or the community's agreement.

When someone withdraws their material, we delete it or restrict access to it in the systems we control, and we mark the analyses that rested on it. We do not, however, promise that it will disappear everywhere: public copies, widely distributed datasets and models already trained require separate discussion. We settle the legal and technical rules before we start collecting materials. A pseudonym or a cryptographic hash does not by itself make data anonymous.[^rodo-2026]

### 7.1. A private notebook in Suveria and conscious publication

We store private materials according to the rules of the [Suveria whitepaper](whitepaper-suveria.md): above all on the user's devices, in encrypted containers, with an optional encrypted copy on the server. Only what someone consciously chooses goes to Omniforum. A thought refined in Suveria's private workshop is published right away, without the Ignis workshop described in chapter 3; the manifesto calls the moment of publication itself the Ignis Ceremony. After publication the rules of the public space or of the chosen group apply, and keeping a private record of the original does not give control over copies that may already have been made.

### 7.2. Moving one's body of work and OmniAPI

We want to develop Omniforum as a digital public good: with open source code, documentation and data formats, with the Digital Public Goods Alliance standard in mind.[^dpga] Through OmniAPI other programs can read and exchange selected materials, but only with the consent of the people they belong to. The fact that the interface documentation is public does not open access to private data.

Anyone can take their body of work to another tool. The export package contains the original statements with their versions, the indicated passages, molecules, atoms with their labels and the relations between them, authorship, sources, information about which interpretations the author has confirmed, and the terms of use. Thanks to identifiers and the history of changes, the same elements can be recognized after import, and another tool should show the original statement next to the molecule extracted from it, its source and its confirmation status. The recorded terms of use say what is permitted, but they will not force an external recipient to comply with them. A private export, publication, sharing for research and sharing for training models are four separate decisions.

### 7.3. Sources and attachments in a public conversation

Large recordings do not have to be stored in Omniforum. We keep the issue map and the descriptions of sources separately, and a video or recording can stay with its provider. The reference then records the address, the author, the date of access and the relevant segment of the recording, and next to it it is clearly visible that we depend on whether the provider keeps the material and on what rules it has.

Materials that we are allowed to store we can keep in the necessary excerpt, as a source copy or as a lightweight image with a text version. With each one we record its origin, the basis for its use, its version and a cryptographic hash, that is, a kind of fingerprint of a file that makes it possible to detect that the file has changed. A hash confirms only that the file is the same, not that its content is reliable. When a source changes or disappears, this is visible next to the claims that rest on it.

We will choose formats, limits and retention periods so that they are useful, accessible, consistent with the rights to the materials and affordable. Before publication, anyone can check what copies will be made and how we handle corrections and requests for deletion. These rules concern the public body of work and are separate from the private, encrypted containers in Suveria. On what terms we store copies of sources and share excerpts of them with other applications through OmniAPI, we will describe before launch, with respect for copyright.

### 7.4. Abuse and unlawful content

A conversation open to everyone needs transparent rules. In the first period Omniforum will be available by invitation, and every invitation will have a visible author. No one approves statements before publication. Moderation works after publication, according to a short, transparent list of reasons: spam, harassment, impersonation, the organized distortion of maps, data about third parties without their consent, and unlawful content. We will publish the rules for moderation and for limiting abuse before the first issue, not only when the first dispute arises. As long as the moderators are volunteers, the list of them is public.

Anyone will be able to report unlawful content. Every restriction, for example hiding or removal, has an author of the decision, a justification and a route of appeal, in line with the EU Digital Services Act. The justification is recorded and visible to the author of the statement and in a public log, and an appeal is considered by a person not involved in the matter, other than the one who imposed the restriction. Automatic detection can only flag suspicious content, and a person makes the decision. We also hide unlawful content in the version history, leaving a visible trace that it was hidden and why.

Before services are publicly launched, we will check and fulfill the operator's obligations: a data protection impact assessment, a way of reporting content and a point of contact under the Digital Services Act, informing people that they are talking with a system and labeling content prepared by a model under the Artificial Intelligence Act, terms of service with the right of withdrawal, and VAT settlement. We publish the results in the decision log.

## 8. Shared decisions and voting

This chapter is about how to make decisions together and how to build voting that can be trusted. It is one of the most difficult parts of the whole project, so we write openly about what seems within reach and what we will have to work on for a long time.

Some things are within our reach from the start: an open conversation for everyone, consultations without verifying participants, transparent rules announced before a vote, and a decision log with justifications. Harder are three matters that limit one another. First, every eligible person should have exactly one vote, but we do not want to collect biometric data or create a central identity database for this purpose. Second, the choice is to remain secret, and at the same time everyone should be able to check that their vote was counted, without any proof that would let someone else learn their choice. Third, voting is to be accessible to people from all over the world, including those who do not have a convenient document, and every additional route of access also opens a route to abuse. On top of this come pressure and vote buying, as well as the question of from when a result can truly bind the foundation.

We go through these matters in turn:

- who can talk and who can vote (8.1);
- what zero-knowledge proofs provide, and what they do not (8.2);
- by what paths the right to vote can be obtained (8.3);
- who decides in difficult matters (8.4);
- from when voting is binding (8.5);
- how to guard against coercion and vote buying (8.6);
- when a result can be suspended and how we treat people whom the system does not serve (8.7).

Regardless of how we resolve these dilemmas, a few principles always apply. An organized conversation prepares a decision, but does not replace it: publishing a thought, confirming its meaning, supporting an idea and voting on spending are separate steps. Before each vote we announce the question, the list of eligible voters, the deadline, the rules for changing a vote, the method of counting the result and the validity threshold, as well as what happens in the case of abstention, a tie or a failure, and how one can appeal. The absence of a vote is not consent. A spending proposal requires the green path from section 5.3 of the manifesto, and we set the threshold of agreement in advance according to the importance of the matter, the scale of the spending and whether the effects can be reversed. Next to the overall result we show how the issue is assessed by researchers and practitioners in the given field and by the people who will feel its effects, on the basis of information that participants themselves decide to provide, separately from the secret ballot and only in groups large enough that no one's choice can be guessed. Those who have less time receive sources and a clear summary early enough to have time to read them.

The question put to a vote grows out of an initiative (5.3): it is proposed by the proposer, and the wording of the card is open to comments for an announced period. We announce in advance the threshold of support needed to hold a vote.

### 8.1. Conversation for everyone, a binding vote after joining

In Omniforum anyone can speak, contribute arguments and describe how a decision will affect their life, even if they have no connection with the foundation. A new, good argument can move a conversation regardless of who brought it. Anyone can also take part in consultations, that is, requests for opinions without verifying participants. A consultation shows what participants think, but it is not a vote within the meaning of the foundation's statute, which for votes requires confirmation of the uniqueness of each voter (§ 8(2)). Without verification its result can be distorted by someone having several accounts, so we treat it as a voice in the conversation, not a measurement. Anyone who wants to vote bindingly on shared resources joins the decision-making community voluntarily and free of charge according to transparent criteria: they state that they want to participate and obtain a voting credential through a chosen verification path.

Anyone can read, without an account. There are three ways to speak in a conversation. From an account: the statement then has an author, and the account has a public rate limit. Without an account, through vouching for a statement: a participant with an account brings in another person's statement, is visible next to it as the one who brought it in and is responsible for it as for their own; the author remains without an account and can be signed with a first name or not at all. Without an account, through the open inbox: the statement goes to the “without vouching” layer, visible to anyone who chooses it, and in the order of visibility it is shown after statements with vouching; any participant with an account can vouch for it with a single action and move it into the conversation. The open inbox has a rate limit, and when it is flooded with automated spam, it can be temporarily closed, which we announce with the date and the reason. We do not use CAPTCHAs and do not approve statements before publication. None of the paths without an account gives the right to vote in a ballot. In the first period, when Omniforum is available by invitation (section 7.4), one can speak without an account through vouching for a statement; we will launch the open inbox when we open Omniforum more widely. Both paths without an account are a design that we will test in the first trial.

An account can be created in several ways, from completely private (a key on one's own device, without an email address) to convenient (signing in through an external provider). For each way, before the choice is made, we show who outside the foundation learns that the account has been created and what data they see, and what happens if that provider disappears. The way an account is created does not affect a participant's rights; the right to vote is a separate certificate added to the account.

We are working toward each person having one effective vote, with their choice remaining secret. For each permitted path, and also for combinations of them, we describe how it is secured and what known limitations it has. No one gets more votes for a payment, wealth, a position they hold or the number of tasks they have completed. If we do not admit someone, we give a justification and a route of appeal.

### 8.2. What zero-knowledge proofs provide

Zero-knowledge proofs make it possible to show that someone belongs to the group of eligible voters without revealing who they are. In the Semaphore protocol they also make it possible to detect that the same voting credential has been used a second time in one vote.[^semaphore] They will not, however, check whether one person has received two different voting credentials: the verification path has to guard against that. The privacy of the whole vote also depends on registration, the application, the device, metadata and the method of counting votes, not only on the proof itself. We are designing a way for everyone to check that their vote was counted without creating proof from which someone else could read their choice. No single technical solution will replace checking the whole process.

### 8.3. Paths to a binding vote

We are designing several paths to the right to vote, and none of them requires biometrics. The first uses a state document with a chip or a digital identity wallet, provided that the chosen system makes it possible to confirm the voting credential without handing protected data over to the foundation. We want to study reading the chip of a passport or ID card directly on a phone: the application checks the state's signature and creates a zero-knowledge proof on the device, without connecting to government servers and without handing personal data over to the foundation. The document never serves to log in or to decrypt data in Suveria, and the system's response does not reveal to an outsider whether a given document has already been used. It remains to be checked whether digital identity wallets will give the foundation a permanent pseudonym assigned only to it that cannot be linked with other services; only such a pseudonym makes it possible to detect a second registration by the same person. Without such a possibility, or a proof carried out on the user's phone, we will not base a binding vote on them.

The first official path to the right to vote is to be the European digital identity wallet, because it makes it possible to confirm the voting credential remotely, from home, without handing protected data over to the foundation. This means that at first only people who have such a wallet will be able to vote bindingly, that is, residents of European Union countries, as those countries make the wallets available. For people from other countries, conversation and consultations are open from the start, and we will add a path to the vote once we find a way without biometrics and without a central database; until then we say plainly that the decision-making community is not yet worldwide. Reading a document's chip on a phone, described above, is a further path we want to study.

Where possible, we derive the one-time credential tag from a person's permanent identifier rather than from the document number, so that a new passport, ID card or wallet of the same person does not give another vote. Not every document contains such an identifier, and a number with a small pool of possible values, such as the Polish PESEL, could be guessed by checking all the possibilities. That is why the tag is to depend also on a secret component split among independent parties, or to rely on the signature of the chip itself; we take this into account in the threat model before choosing a technology. The tag is to work only in a specific registration context and period: it makes it possible to detect that someone is registering a second time, but it does not reveal the permanent identifier or an easily guessed hash of it, cannot serve as a shared identifier across different services and does not make it possible to link a person with their vote. For the chosen solution we will check who could recognize a person or link their activities, and what happens when the same document is used again, renewed, the wallet is changed, the certificate is reissued or access is recovered.

The second path is in-person meetings held in many places at the same time. Their rules are to make it difficult for one person to collect several voting credentials in the same cycle and to make it possible to check whether the organizers issue voting credentials to people who actually came. We are also examining what makes participation difficult for people who find it hard to get to a meeting.

Combining paths leaves the risk that the same person obtains additional voting credentials, for example by having several citizenships or by using both a document and a meeting. At the beginning we accept this risk consciously, so that as many people as possible can join without biometrics, and over time, through further paths, also people from outside the EU. The goal remains a uniform system in which one person has one vote, and we are working toward it. We choose paths that are meant to make each additional voting credential require more time, effort and money than simply creating accounts online. Whether this barrier works and how much accessibility gains from it we will assess in trials, which is why we do not state in advance how many additional votes may appear. Before results become binding, we will show participants the known limitations, the results of the trials and the rules for responding to abuse, and we will adjust the scope of decisions to this assessment.

Vouching, invitations and online tests alone do not give the right to a binding vote; they are sufficient for conversation and consultations. We publish aggregate data on how often each path was used and what checking them revealed, while protecting privacy. The number of certificates issued does not, however, say how many unique people there are. We also look into why people who did not manage to get into the register give up.

Everything needed to vote is free. The free part of Suveria is enough to store the certificate; there is no need to pay money or to use paid features. Everyone keeps their certificate of the right to vote in their own private space in Suveria, separate from the ballot and from private content. Before each decision we announce when we close the register and how long one must have held a voting credential in order to vote. This makes it harder to add participants suddenly just before a vote, although it does not protect against voting credentials prepared long in advance. Anyone who recovers access keeps their seniority and one effective voting credential. Before casting a vote, everyone sees a short, accessible summary of the most important positions, objections and sources and can enter the full issue map. The summary shows the scope of the decision, the most important findings, sources, significant differences in assessment and the limits of knowledge, and each point can be expanded. It is meant to make it possible to decide with the uncertainty named, not to promise a correct result. We publish the summary in advance, and the parties to a dispute can report that their position was left out or distorted; we then show their own short account next to it. This is help with making an informed choice, not an exam or a test of understanding; anyone can see where the summary comes from and in which version it is, and report an overlooked perspective.

### 8.4. Who decides in difficult matters

In difficult matters we propose three steps. First, an open issue map in Omniforum in which anyone can take part. Then a randomly selected advisory assembly: a group of people chosen by lot who receive time, materials and the opportunity to talk with the authors of proposals. Finally, all eligible voters vote. We draw from the register of eligible voters, using public randomness that anyone can check. If the assembly itself were to make binding decisions, it would need a separate, limited mandate to do so.

We can also use a random sample for advisory polls. Volunteers who come forward on their own do not form a representative sample, and drawing from the register shows the opinion of this community, not of all humanity. We also take into account who declined to take part.

### 8.5. From when voting is binding

Voting will gain binding force gradually. We will start with trials without financial consequences, then move on to real decisions about a small, separate pool and about actions that can be reversed, and we will extend the scope only after checking the results and safeguards. The first consultations will be a trial, without consequences for the foundation's operations, and their topic will be chosen by the invited participants. Before the first trial with real money we announce the maximum amount it covers, the result that would stop it, and a route of appeal against the suspension of a result to people independent of the board. About a thousand verified people is the scale at which we want to test registration and error handling; such a number does not yet prove that the participants are unique or that they represent a wider community.

Before the next stage becomes binding, we announce to participants the scope of decisions, limits, thresholds, the way of raising objections and how we will carry out the result, and the system undergoes tests of registration, vote counting, credential recovery and resistance to abuse. We also check whether the scope of decisions is consistent with the current statute and the law, and establish who will carry out the result and how. For a result to formally bind the foundation, a change to the statute is needed, described in the statute change register as Z4 (votes and consultations, § 8 of the statute). As long as a trial does not confirm the uniqueness of each voter, we call it a consultation, not a vote within the meaning of § 8(2) of the statute. Whether voters are unique people we assess separately from whether we counted the certificates correctly. Until then the foundation operates in the agile phase described in the [Foundation Principles whitepaper](whitepaper-zasady-fundacji.md): the results of votes and consultations are formally advisory, and the board works its way toward binding community decisions through successive trials, in which it announces in advance to what extent it will carry out the result, and after each of which it publishes a summary.

The full launch of further pillars (II: open designs for durable objects, III: contact with nature) still requires all three conditions from section 6.3 of the manifesto together: voting that ensures one effective vote per person, funds for six months of maintaining Suveria and Omniforum, and a decision by the community. We will consider the first of them, one effective vote for each eligible person, fulfilled only when the paths that allow additional votes are replaced by a uniform system in which one person has one vote, and trials confirm this. This may take a long time, and we say so plainly.

### 8.6. Coercion and vote buying

We want everyone to be able to change their choice until the end of the vote, with the last valid vote cast according to the rules being the one that counts. This can make vote buying harder: someone who paid or applied pressure does not know whether the voter later changed their mind, and cannot check it. For this to work, the whole protocol has to be built appropriately; a button for changing one's vote is not enough on its own. One model is the MACI protocol, but it has its own assumptions: the coordinator can decrypt individual votes, and resistance to collusion depends on the coordinator's honesty.[^maci] If we based voting on a similar model, a single coordinator would be replaced by a key split among independent parties, so that the foundation alone could not read an individual vote. This will not protect against someone who controls the device, the voting credential or the voter themselves until the vote closes; we take such situations into account in tests and in the description of limitations. We also check whether a vote can be linked to a person through metadata, and what happens when someone loses their device.

### 8.7. Suspending a result and the test of dignity

The board may suspend the implementation of a result only for reasons announced before the vote, for example when it detects an error in the protocol, documented large-scale abuse or an infrastructure failure. Every suspension has a public justification and a date for reconsideration. Without these conditions, announcing binding voting would leave the board a free veto, and we do not want that.

The hardest test of the whole system is how it treats a person who does not have a convenient document, has been wrongly rejected or raises uncomfortable criticism. A refusal of registration is never final or made solely automatically: anyone can appeal against it to people independent of the matter, with privacy preserved. No one loses the right to vote because of their views or for criticizing the foundation and the board. Anyone who cannot use any path to a binding vote still takes full part in the conversation and in consultations, and we keep looking for further paths for them.

In the decision log we record the options considered, the reasons for the choice, dissenting opinions, the budget and later effects, and the conclusions from them return to the issue map. Who is responsible for what in carrying out decisions and in legal matters is described in the [Foundation Principles whitepaper](whitepaper-zasady-fundacji.md).

## 9. How we will check whether Omniforum helps

Everything we have described above is at the design stage. Before we build the whole, we want to check in small steps whether Omniforum really helps people understand one another better. We are starting with the simplest use, and we add further ones only when the previous one has passed the test.

The first step is one complete path of a single thought. Someone enters their own text, digital intelligence proposes how to break it down into molecules and atoms, the author corrects what was misunderstood and saves the result together with its source. Later they return, open the record and use it in another conversation. We check whether anything was lost along the way: the exact wording of the original, its meaning, successive versions and who has access to what. In this trial we also check for interpretation errors that the model did not flag itself, and we compare the result with the text alone and with an ordinary summary. Reopening a record should not require a new, paid analysis just to recover an earlier result.

The next steps are a simple add-on for one platform where people already talk, then the shared work of a small group on one issue, then a story of an idea prepared as text, and only at the end, separately, making decisions together. We do not add new integrations until we have checked that the help really makes people's work easier.

We want to open the first public issue maps on two kinds of topics. The first will be claims and hypotheses from our manifesto and whitepapers, so that anyone can test Omniforum by challenging or improving our own assumptions. The second will be ordinary, everyday questions, from caring for plants to cooking recipes: on these it is easier to see, without tension, how conditions, sources and different experiences work.

We are also analyzing an idea similar to the SETI@home program, in which people all over the world made the computing power of their computers available for analyzing data from radio telescopes. Omniforum's public work, such as breaking public texts down into molecules and atoms, translating stories or preparing summaries of maps, could use volunteers' computing power. Anyone who wanted to could then contribute without giving up their own time, by making some of their computer's power available and paying for the electricity used. This applies only to public data, because a volunteer's computer sees what it processes, and we would check the results by computing the same task with more than one person. It is an idea we are only just analyzing, but one of the paths we would like to explore.

At each step we check whether it helps: how long it takes to arrive at a useful analysis, how many corrections, and how important, the author has to make, how often the model misinterprets the intention, whether the source is easy to find, whether different people can use the tool, how much it costs and whether a person can then explain the issue to others on their own. Before each trial we publish what result we will consider sufficient to add the next step, and we stick to it in the assessment. We consider returns to Omniforum a good sign only when they serve a new need, not a compulsion to keep checking on the system.

We check separately whether participants are better at recognizing facts and unknowns, whether they find it easier to agree on shared action and whether the decision made achieves its announced goal. An improvement in the first does not prove the others, and agreement of views with the foundation is not a measure of success.

We will accept an add-on for other services only when it meets several conditions: it sends nothing before the user chooses to, respects refusal, makes it possible to stop work at any moment, deletes working data and asks for each consent separately. A trial with people using such a tool for the first time is to show whether they understand the difference between an interpretation prepared by a model and the author's words.

We will also check whether one's body of work can really be taken along. In this trial we open a selected analysis in an independent tool, without a connection to Omniforum, and compare the sources, passages, relations, history and confirmations. If the other tool does not support something, the import is to report it clearly, instead of quietly removing it or changing its meaning.

In the trial of followed topics, described in section 1.1, we will check whether on returning one sees only the actual changes since the last visit, and whether content someone has already seen stays marked also after a correction, a change of source or the removal of an argument. Participants should be able to say what the review brought that was new, and decide for themselves whether they want to go deeper or end the visit. We will check separately whether a comparison of different solutions preserves the criteria and conditions under which they were tested.

**Results log.** As of 30 October 2026: the Omniforum prototype is under construction, and we have not yet completed any of the acceptance trials described. We add each further result here with the date, the prototype version, a description of the trial and the conclusion, also when a trial fails.

A good conversation can also give rise to materials useful in research, but only to the extent participants have agreed to. How we prepare them, under what rights we use them and how we keep them separate from tests is described in the [materials and benchmark whitepaper](whitepaper-materialy-i-benchmark.md).

Novus Ignis Foundation, Poznań, KRS 0001269575. Website and manifesto: novusignis.org. Comments: salve@novusignis.org.

## Notes

[^web-annotation]: [W3C (2017): Web Annotation Data Model](https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/). W3C Recommendation. An annotation model linking the content of a comment with the indicated resource or fragment; a reference point for data portability.

[^hypothesis]: [Hypothesis: Embedding Hypothesis in websites and platforms](https://web.hypothes.is/help/embedding-hypothesis-in-websites-and-platforms/). Project documentation. An example of embedding annotations in websites; it does not confirm automatic division into molecules and atoms or the preservation of the author's intention.

[^wright]: Erik Olin Wright, *Envisioning Real Utopias*, Verso, London 2010. A research framework with three criteria: desirability, viability and achievability; not a ready-made assessment method.

[^rodo-2026]: [GDPR, Regulation 2016/679](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679). Legal act. Pseudonymization does not settle anonymity (Article 4(5), recital 26); consent can be withdrawn, which does not invalidate earlier lawful processing (Article 7(3)).

[^dpga]: [Digital Public Goods Alliance: standard](https://www.digitalpublicgoods.net/standard). Standard. Criteria for assessing a digital public good; a design direction, not recognition obtained from the DPGA.

[^semaphore]: [Semaphore: documentation](https://docs.semaphore.pse.dev/). Protocol documentation. Proof of group membership without revealing identity, and detection of a repeated signal within a given scope; the protocol does not establish that one person has received only one voting credential.

[^maci]: [MACI: introduction](https://maci.pse.dev/docs/introduction). Protocol documentation. Only a trusted coordinator can decrypt the votes, and resistance to collusion holds only if the coordinator is honest; a dishonest coordinator cannot, however, censor or alter the process. Accessed 28 October 2026.