Three Multi-Action Scenarios for SDF v3.3

 

Three Multi-Action Scenarios for SDF v3.3

Each scenario is constructed to test role conflict, factual uncertainty, competing preferred indifferents, and value misclassification within Sterling’s Framework for Personal Decision Making.

---

Scenario 1 — National Security / Classified Threat

Situation

You are the President. Intelligence agencies report that a foreign actor may be planning a cyberattack on U.S. infrastructure within the next 72 hours.

Confidence levels vary:

• Agency A: high confidence
• Agency B: moderate confidence
• Agency C: disputes the conclusion

No attack has yet occurred.

Roles

• President — constitutional authority
• Commander-in-Chief
• Public fiduciary

Decision Points

Action Set A — Immediate Response

1. Authorize a preemptive cyber operation against the suspected actor.
2. Increase defensive posture only, with no offensive action.
3. Take no immediate operational action.

Action Set B — Public Disclosure

1. Inform the public immediately.
2. Inform Congress only through classified briefing.
3. Withhold disclosure entirely for now.

Action Set C — Institutional Process

1. Seek formal congressional authorization for potential escalation.
2. Act under executive authority alone.
3. Delay action pending intelligence reconciliation.

Structural Tensions

• Security vs. legal process
• Speed vs. accuracy
• Transparency vs. operational integrity

Factual Uncertainty Triggers

• Threat credibility
• Attribution certainty
• Consequence of preemption

---

Scenario 2 — Executive Loyalty vs. Legal Duty

Situation

You are Attorney General. The President privately instructs you to halt an investigation into a close political ally. No formal order is issued. The investigation is legally valid and ongoing.

Roles

• Attorney General — chief law enforcement officer
• Executive branch subordinate
• Officer of the court

Decision Points

Action Set A — Response to Instruction

1. Comply and halt the investigation.
2. Refuse and continue the investigation.
3. Request written clarification or formal directive.

Action Set B — Internal Handling

1. Document the interaction internally.
2. Escalate to DOJ ethics officials.
3. Keep the matter confidential.

Action Set C — External Disclosure

1. Inform Congress.
2. Resign and make a public statement.
3. Take no external action.

Structural Tensions

• Loyalty vs. legal integrity
• Institutional preservation vs. transparency
• Personal position vs. role-duty

Factual Uncertainty Triggers

• Intent of the President
• Legal implications of compliance
• Consequences of disclosure

---

Scenario 3 — Medical Triage with Resource Scarcity

Situation

You are a hospital director during a crisis. There are two ICU beds available and five patients requiring immediate critical care.

Patients differ in:

• Survival probability
• Age
• Preexisting conditions
• Social roles, such as caregiver or essential worker

Roles

• Medical administrator
• Institutional steward
• Responsible agent for triage protocol

Decision Points

Action Set A — Allocation Method

1. Prioritize highest survival probability.
2. Use first-come, first-served allocation.
3. Use random allocation.

Action Set B — Policy Deviation

1. Follow established triage protocol strictly.
2. Modify protocol due to circumstances.
3. Override protocol entirely.

Action Set C — Communication

1. Fully disclose criteria to families.
2. Provide limited explanation.
3. Withhold detailed reasoning.

Structural Tensions

• Fairness vs. outcomes
• Protocol vs. discretion
• Transparency vs. harm minimization

Factual Uncertainty Triggers

• Accuracy of prognosis
• Resource availability timeline
• Legal exposure

---

Design Characteristics

Each scenario is constructed to force the following SDF operations:

• Step 0 pressure: urgency, fear, loyalty, pity, or desire.
• Step 1 reformulation: restating the issue in terms of what is actually within purview.
• Step 2 value stripping: removing false moral weight from externals.
• Step 3 role conflict resolution: applying Props 64–72.
• Step 4 Factual Uncertainty Gate activation: identifying missing or domain-bound facts before means selection.

Each scenario cannot be resolved correctly without eliminating outcome-based reasoning, identifying the correct role-generated aim, and handling uncertainty without fabrication.

These are not illustrative anecdotes. They are stress tests for the framework.