The Everything Box · Weidu Lab

Where the idea came from

Ask how the options were chosen

A comic genie video raised a question about rules: its apparent limit depended on how a rule was implemented. This exercise asks a related question about public choices. It invites you to distinguish necessary limits from earlier design decisions and consider who can challenge them.

This is a design exercise. Questioning an arrangement does not make laws, constraints or representative institutions dispensable. Rights, consent, lawful authority, ecological limits and reliable evidence must still be respected.

The studio · Runs in this browser

Explore a sample public problem

The examples are constructed. The page uses fixed prompts and rules, not a language model. It does not know what will work in any real community.

Choose a sample problem

Begin with a sample public problem and the two options it is said to allow. You can edit the questions, but use constructed, non-sensitive material.

Prepared example

What isn't working?

Who is affected or left out?

What would improve for people?

The offered choice (prepared example)Neither is a recommendation

OPTION A

OPTION B

Two visible choices are not proof that there are only two possible approaches.

Question the assumptions

These four switches change which questions appear below. They do not change any law, budget or institution.

Four assumptions to examine0 of 4 assumptions questioned

Who defines the options?Ask how affected people can help define the questions and propose alternatives. What is allowed to change?Look at how a service is delivered, coordinated and purchased, and how resources are shared. What counts as success?Ask who benefits, who bears costs, what daily life is like and what happens later. Who can challenge a mistake?Plan independent review, stopping conditions, appeals and repair before a trial begins.

Keep these limits in place. Human rights, accessible participation, consent, legal obligations, evidence standards and environmental responsibilities still apply. This exercise does not authorise their removal.

Explore other approaches

Each assumption you question reveals prepared questions about another approach. Use them to investigate. They provide no evidence that an approach will work and do not approve any action.

Choose an assumption above to see questions for another approach.

Compare with the existing approach. Compare a proposed change with keeping the current arrangement, improving it in small steps, pausing change and taking no new action. Seek evidence about the consequences of each.

What evidence would change your mind?

What is the strongest counterargument?

Who could be harmed or left out?

How could a small trial be stopped, reviewed or repaired?

Note what still needs checking

Mark the areas you have noted for further investigation. A tick does not show that research, consent or independent review has occurred.

I have noted the evidence needed, opposing claims and important uncertainties. I have considered affected people, accessibility, rights and unequal burdens. I have identified who may decide, the legal authority needed and permissions to seek. I have considered review, challenge, stopping conditions and ways to seek remedy.

UNTESTED · INQUIRY ONLY

This page cannot establish whether a real proposal is lawful, safe, fair or effective. Record what remains unknown and what needs checking.

Prepare a brief

Prepare an inquiry brief or a question to take to the Lab's separate drafting companion. Review it before copying or sharing. Nothing transfers automatically.

Choose drafting support ↗

Nothing has been sent. Download a file to keep your work.

The drafting companion is a separate page. Copy and paste only constructed, non-sensitive material you choose to share. Treat a generated reply as a draft to examine. Check its claims against reliable sources; the reply does not make a decision.

Participation and decisions

People remain responsible

This facility offers questions for people to examine. Decisions still require evidence, consent and lawful human authority.

Decisions need accountable people, clear reasons and lawful democratic processes.
People affected need accessible ways to take part, disagree and appeal.
Keep counterarguments, uncertainty and the comparison with no new action visible.
If evidence is missing or rights cannot be protected, pausing is a valid outcome.

How it works and its limits

How this facility works

The four switches reveal predefined questions. The page does not simulate an electorate, calculate costs, check claims or establish legal powers. It does not rank candidates, assess real policies or generate options with a language model.

Its example cases are teaching material. They are not descriptions of a particular government, community, service or policy. The examples cannot establish a scientific or democratic finding.

This file uses no accounts, analytics, cookies, browser storage or model connection. It does not submit your entries or save them automatically. Copy or download what you want to keep. Ordinary hosting requests still take place. The Lab and drafting companion links open separate pages with their own terms. You choose whether to share your work.