Prototype v0.1 - Failure-Mode Explorer
Probationary System Simulator
Compare how permanent-record, time-decay, probationary, and mediator-review models handle the same case in a never-forgetting system.
This is not a repentance calculator. It is a research sandbox for testing assumptions about restoration, evidence, gaming risk, appeal, and bounded probation.
What this is
A side-by-side model comparison tool for credit, moderation, hiring, fraud, and related high-stakes systems where a record persists and restoration is contested.
What this is not
A claim that repentance, dignity, or justice collapse into one number. The output is provisional by design and should provoke critique, not compliance.
Case inputs
Adjust the case. The outputs update immediately.
Current read
Probation continues
The current case shows meaningful change, but the evidence is not yet strong enough for automatic restoration.
Probation target
18 months
Restoration signal
61 / 100
Gaming risk
Medium
Recommended path
Human review
Permanent record
Truth preserved, no restoration path.
The violation stays active because this model never relaxes consequences.
Time decay
Time matters more than evidence.
Restoration waits for enough time to pass, even if the behavior evidence improves earlier.
Probationary metric
Evidence and trajectory both matter.
The system sees improvement, but restoration stays conditional until the case becomes harder to game.
Mediator review
A human or oversight layer absorbs uncertainty.
A mediator layer can compare the record to context instead of pretending the score is the whole case.
Why this result
- The record shows change, but not enough verified time for automatic restoration.
- The cost of repair is visible, but still modest relative to the violation.
- The appeal evidence helps, but it does not eliminate uncertainty.
- The safer path is to keep probation active and require review.
What this simulator does not know
- It does not know intent, coercion, trauma, or structural constraints behind the behavior.
- It does not know whether the available evidence is biased, incomplete, or legally unusable.
- It does not know whether the scenario should allow probation at all under domain-specific law or policy.
- It does not replace human accountability for deciding what restoration should mean.
How to critique it usefully
- Change one assumption and say what failure mode it creates or resolves.
- Point to a real domain rule, paper, or case where the model breaks down.
- Explain what a mediator or oversight layer should be allowed to override and why.
- Focus on measurable harms: false restoration, permanent lockout, opacity, or gaming incentives.
Get project updates without sending a full critique
If the simulator is useful but you are not ready to challenge the model yet, join the mailing list for research updates, new essays, and prototype notes.
Disagree with the output?
Good. That is the point.
Algodai is trying to turn an abstract justice-and-mercy argument into something testable. If the result feels wrong, say which assumption failed, which evidence type is missing, or which review path should exist instead.