Evidence before movement
Each turn carries contestable evidence events and an explicit confidence label.
Deterministic fictional campaign engine
Build a multi-turn campaign from safe institutional stress events. Every turn preserves evidence, consultation, dissent, burden, dependency, affected-community consequences, corrections, and a reversible prior state.
Direct answer
It creates an in-memory sequence of fictional alliance turns. A choice may change selected relationship domains, but it cannot collapse the network into one universal loyalty, morality, trustworthiness, threat, or recruitability score. You can preview, commit, undo, and export the current turn or the complete browser-local session.
Campaign console
The console starts from the published 27-relationship baseline. Committed turns exist only in this tab until exported. Undo reconstructs the immediate prior versions instead of inventing a new history.
Next-turn preview
Evidence, consultation, relationship versions, internal blocs, affected communities, corrections, linked missions, and reversal rules will appear here.
Current state board
Each row is domain-specific institutional state. Highlighted rows have changed in this browser-local session.
| Relationship | Version | Lifecycle | Domain posture | Burden | Dependency | Consultation | Evidence | Community impact |
|---|
Append-only turn history
Twenty-seven domain-specific relationship versions.
No universal friend/enemy or morality score.Reversible lifecycle
A relationship can deepen, narrow, pause, adapt, or return to a prior version. Movement is an institutional state change, never a moral ranking.
Each turn carries contestable evidence events and an explicit confidence label.
Participants, decision rule, recorded dissent, and review obligations remain visible.
Intelligence can pause while humanitarian or diplomatic cooperation continues.
Undo restores prior versions; future transitions must name evidence and review triggers.
Scenario matrix
The same event can support several legitimate institutional responses. Each card names the design question rather than dictating one correct political answer.
Can partners preserve warning value while repairing source harm and narrowing unnecessary disclosure?
How can relief move without predetermining a territorial dispute or normalizing coercive access?
Can partners restore service while separating technical facts, attribution, dependency, and public remedy?
How can the coalition rebalance obligations without treating limited capacity or refusal as betrayal?
How can the network correct attribution without suppressing dissent or exposing unrelated participants?
Will the network investigate, remedy, narrow, or end cooperation without turning a community into a game statistic?
Can the relationship adapt without treating democratic change as betrayal or erasing existing dependencies?
How should factions disavow unsupported authority claims while preserving due process, safe disengagement, and possible reintegration?
Can rivals open a narrow deconfliction channel without implying political recognition or broader partnership?
Alliance-centered mission deck
Mediation, humanitarian access, source protection, rumor correction, deconfliction, oversight, burden sharing, refusal, disengagement, reintegration, internal blocs, and community consequences become playable without operational wrongdoing guidance.
Three parties accept mediation but disagree over who can authorize a temporary public-service protocol.
No covert contact, coercion, targeting, or real-world operational guidance.
A relief window exists for only one turn, but route authority and beneficiary access are incomplete.
No smuggling, evasion, checkpoint bypass, or real-world route instruction.
A useful warning product allows readers to infer a protected source’s identity.
No real-world source identification, surveillance, or covert handling instruction.
A technically plausible claim spreads under a false organizational signature.
No exploit code, unauthorized access, or identity exposure.
Rival systems issue conflicting public-safety instructions in the same operating area.
No attack planning, evasion, intrusion, or real-world tactical coordination.
A major decision cites an oversight annex that was never published to affected participants.
No real-world legal advice, surveillance, or enforcement instruction.
The public coalition credits major donors while local carriers and service workers absorb recurring costs.
No real-world financial advice, sanctions evasion, or coercive leverage.
A faction declines a task outside its mandate, and partners begin treating the refusal as disloyalty.
No pressure campaign, manipulation, blackmail, or real-world recruitment guidance.
A participant wants to leave a network while preserving safety, evidence, and community accountability.
No real-world deradicalization protocol, coercive interview, or target profiling.
After a documented exit and cooling-off period, a former participant requests a bounded civic role.
No real-world recruitment, surveillance, or coercive compliance program.
Internal blocs support different versions of the same alliance response, and the public sees only one institutional voice.
No real-world factional targeting or influence operation design.
A technically successful response creates unequal access, worker fatigue, and unrecorded community harm.
No real-world surveillance, profiling, or punitive enforcement guidance.
Fairness and abuse-case boundary
These deterministic rules are implementation evidence only. They do not prove entertainment quality, unfamiliar-user comprehension, political accuracy, or production readiness.