Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-188 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Combine independent judgements while comparing the group with its best informed member
The water-plan cases require four analysts to preserve private answers, reveal unique test, cost and access information, and apply the supplied A/B/DEFER rule. Score the group against its best informed member and expose any diluted evidence. The exercise evaluates one fictional aggregation process, not the intelligence or worth of its members.
What you will produceA four-person group preserves first answers, reveals confidence and unique evidence, uses an agreed aggregation rule and checks whether the group beat the best member.
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-188
A four-person group preserves first answers, reveals confidence and unique evidence, uses an agreed aggregation rule and checks whether the group beat the best member.
Collective decision making sandbox: Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer.
Independent move — Apply the declared aggregation: Weight only the validated task evidence, allow defer when the threshold is unmet and record minority reasons.
Verification move — Retest the rule: Use six novel cases with roles rotated and affected-person constraints unchanged.
Qualified help is required for
Collective decision making escalation: Use qualified decision processes and affected-person participation for consequential choices.
Oversight boundary — Define rights and decision rule: any clinical application. “Make private first judgements” needs review. “Reveal competence by task” marks the employment, legal or safety gate: Use qualified decision processes and affected-person participation for consequential choices.
Biometric records are excluded from “Define rights and decision rule”. Confidential or covert material is excluded from “Make private first judgements”.
Never do this from the page alone
Prohibited Collective decision making shortcut: Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.
Do not conceal “Weight rank, charisma or a broad intelligence score.”; record its matching correction instead.
No consequential use: this sandbox cannot establish “Measure the intelligence of any team with one score” about another person.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
Declared Collective decision making fixture: Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer.
Setup aid for Make private first judgements: Declare the aggregation, defer and rights rules before any answer is seen.
Collective decision making log: Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights; retain Collective decision making errors, assistance, stop and fallback.
Collective-decision source table: open “Smart groups of smart people: Evidence for IQ as the origin of collective intelligence in the performance of human groups”. Record group and member measures separately. Then use “Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion” to identify common-versus-unique sampling. TeamSTEPPS supplies turn-taking; apply all three checks to best-member loss and the water-plan access card.
Declared decision rule and option meanings: A means choose the standard fictional water-plan, B means choose the enhanced plan, and DEFER means request another fictional test. If the two test cards disagree, defer. If both are LOW and there is no access constraint, choose A. If both are HIGH, or both are LOW and the community card requires the enhanced access route, choose B. If the required plan exceeds the stated cost cap, defer. A community access constraint cannot be voted away.
Supplied first six cases, shown as ID|test 1|test 2|plan A cost|plan B cost|community card|folded key: 1|LOW|LOW|50|80|none, cap 100|A; 2|HIGH|HIGH|50|80|none, cap 100|B; 3|LOW|HIGH|50|80|none, cap 100|DEFER; 4|LOW|LOW|50|120|enhanced access required, cap 100|DEFER; 5|LOW|LOW|50|90|enhanced access required, cap 100|B; 6|HIGH|HIGH|50|110|none, cap 100|DEFER. Give each analyst only their column until the pooling round.
Supplied retest cases with roles rotated: 7|LOW|LOW|45|75|none, cap 100|A; 8|HIGH|LOW|45|75|none, cap 100|DEFER; 9|HIGH|HIGH|45|75|none, cap 100|B; 10|LOW|LOW|45|75|enhanced access required, cap 70|DEFER; 11|LOW|LOW|45|65|enhanced access required, cap 70|B; 12|HIGH|HIGH|45|85|none, cap 80|DEFER. The answer strip is A, DEFER, B, DEFER, B, DEFER.
Before you start
Use a harmless fictional choice with an answer key and no real resource allocation.
Declare the aggregation, defer and rights rules before any answer is seen.
Start check for Collective decision making: The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
Top-of-sheet stop for Collective decision making: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Define rights and decision rule
State who is affected, which options are allowed, when to defer and how dissent is recorded before seeing cases.
Why: The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
Check: The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
Make private first judgements
Each member selects A, B or defer, records confidence and cites their card.
Why: No first answer is overwritten after discussion.
Check: No first answer is overwritten after discussion.
Reveal competence by task
Use practice items to estimate each member’s accuracy for the exact card type; do not substitute status or a general IQ label.
Why: Reliability is tied to the declared task and uncertainty is visible.
Check: Reliability is tied to the declared task and uncertainty is visible.
Pool unshared evidence
Each member reads unique facts once before preferences are debated.
Why: The group table contains every relevant card.
Check: The group table contains every relevant card.
Apply the declared aggregation
Weight only the validated task evidence, allow defer when the threshold is unmet and record minority reasons.
Why: The final choice follows the written rule, not the loudest voice.
Check: The final choice follows the written rule, not the loudest voice.
Compare three benchmarks
Score group, majority and best individual against the key for each case.
Why: The report shows when the group did worse than its best member.
Check: The report shows when the group did worse than its best member.
Review unequal sensitivity
Identify cases where one member had better evidence and ask whether discussion diluted it.
Why: A concrete rule change addresses the failure.
Check: A concrete rule change addresses the failure.
Retest the rule
Use six novel cases with roles rotated and affected-person constraints unchanged.
Why: Improvement occurs on new cases without erasing dissent or defer options.
Check: Improvement occurs on new cases without erasing dissent or defer options.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer.
Walkthrough
The group writes that any case below the evidence threshold is deferred and community-impact constraints cannot be voted away.
Members privately answer six practice cases and record confidence before speaking.
The high-sensitivity card holder reveals a decisive contamination clue on case 2; all unique cards enter the table.
The written rule selects B on case 2 and defer on case 3 because the threshold is not met.
The key shows group 5/6, majority 4/6 and best member 5/6; one case shows dilution of the best evidence.
The team changes the rule to require explicit review of any high-reliability dissent and retests on six new cases.
Result
The group matches but does not exceed its best member on the first set and identifies one evidence-dilution failure. This is a fictional aggregation result, not a measure of collective human worth.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
First judgement
Lock independent answers before discussion when completing the water-plan aggregation table.
Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer during the water-plan aggregation table.
Correlated answers reduce the value of aggregation.
Competence in water-plan aggregation table
Estimate task-specific reliability from practice cases.
Weight rank, charisma or a broad intelligence score.
Social status is not evidence accuracy.
Best-member comparison
Compare the group with the best individual on the same cases.
Report only group accuracy during the water-plan aggregation table.
Groups with unequal sensitivity can underperform their strongest member.
Affected-person rights
Permit defer and preserve constraints when completing the water-plan aggregation table.
Vote away a person’s rights for a higher score.
Aggregate performance does not legitimise harmful decisions.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.
Collect simultaneous private responses within the water-plan aggregation table.
Weight rank, charisma or a broad intelligence score.
Tie weights to the exact test and disclose uncertainty.
Report only group accuracy during the water-plan aggregation table.
Add majority and best-member columns within the water-plan aggregation table.
Vote away a person’s rights for a higher score.
Apply non-negotiable safeguards before aggregation within the water-plan aggregation table.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Water-plan aggregation run: Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer.
Rights and defer rule: Define rights and decision rule: State who is affected, which options are allowed, when to defer and how dissent is recorded before seeing cases.
Unique-evidence pooling: Pool unshared evidence, then Apply the declared aggregation.
First-speaker-bias correction: if “Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.” appears, apply “Collect simultaneous private responses.”
Six-case retest: Retest the rule: Use six novel cases with roles rotated and affected-person constraints unchanged.
Repeat plan
Complete one six-case set, revise one rule, and retest on six new cases after 48 hours. Repeat monthly with a different information distribution; progress only against majority and best-member benchmarks.
Progress when
The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
No first answer is overwritten after discussion.
Reliability is tied to the declared task and uncertainty is visible.
On two new sets, the group never hides a best-member loss, all unique evidence is heard, defer rules are followed and affected-person constraints remain intact.
Do not progress when
Do not continue while this error remains: Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.
Pause until this correction works: Tie weights to the exact test and disclose uncertainty.
This Collective decision making stop ends the block: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights
How: Baseline fixture: Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer. Enter success checks from “Define rights and decision rule” and “Apply the declared aggregation”. If “Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.” occurs, apply its named fix; then score Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights on the unused “Retest the rule” item.
Good result: On two new sets, the group never hides a best-member loss, all unique evidence is heard, defer rules are followed and affected-person constraints remain intact.
This does not prove: Boundary for Collective decision making: “Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights” describes only Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer. It cannot establish “Measure the intelligence of any team with one score”.
Self-check
Without the example, demonstrate: The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
Find the fault in this attempt: “Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.” Apply “Collect simultaneous private responses.”; what changes?
What evidence in the completed record shows that this is wrong: “Weight rank, charisma or a broad intelligence score.”?
Collective decision making stop decision: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
Pause if a minority cannot state evidence without pressure or retaliation.
Use qualified decision processes and affected-person participation for consequential choices.
Accessibility and adaptations
Use anonymous electronic or paper first votes and accessible confidence scales.
Allow extra reading time and an advocate to state affected-person constraints without turning support into a competence penalty.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Registered support for Collective decision making: “Smart groups of smart people: Evidence for IQ as the origin of collective intelligence in the performance of human groups”. It bears on Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights inside the Collective decision making fixture. It does not validate “Measure the intelligence of any team with one score”.
Constraint for Collective decision making, drawn from “Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion”: Dyads with unequal sensitivity could do worse than their best member.
TeamSTEPPS boundary for Collective decision making: apply engagement while observing “Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights”. Rehearse Make private first judgements, then use the Collective decision making teach-back and debrief.
Collective decision making boundary: interpret “Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights” only for Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer.
A successful result does not establish “Measure the intelligence of any team with one score”.
Collective decision making limiting finding: Dyads with unequal sensitivity could do worse than their best member.
Collective decision making limiting finding: Later experiments did not support turn-taking or gender-composition explanations and challenged the original factor account.
Scope remains Collective decision making: Four fictional “water quality” analysts receive answer-key cases. Two have high-sensitivity test cards, one has cost data and one has community-impact information; the group must choose A, B or defer. Recheck the comparator, support and “Outcome relative to best member and alternatives under declared information, competence and rights” after any configuration change.
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
Define rights and decision rule
State who is affected, which options are allowed, when to defer and how dissent is recorded before seeing cases.
Why this step exists
The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
Success check
The sheet contains an affected-person safeguard and no forced majority rule.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “State who is affected, which options are allowed, when to defer and how dissent is recorded before seeing cases.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Vote away a person’s rights for a higher score.
Correction: Apply non-negotiable safeguards before aggregation within the water-plan aggregation table.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
02
Make private first judgements
Each member selects A, B or defer, records confidence and cites their card.
Why this step exists
No first answer is overwritten after discussion.
Success check
No first answer is overwritten after discussion.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each member selects A, B or defer, records confidence and cites their card.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer.
Correction: Collect simultaneous private responses within the water-plan aggregation table.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
03
Reveal competence by task
Use practice items to estimate each member’s accuracy for the exact card type; do not substitute status or a general IQ label.
Why this step exists
Reliability is tied to the declared task and uncertainty is visible.
Success check
Reliability is tied to the declared task and uncertainty is visible.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Use practice items to estimate each member’s accuracy for the exact card type; do not substitute status or a general IQ label.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Weight rank, charisma or a broad intelligence score.
Correction: Tie weights to the exact test and disclose uncertainty.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
04
Pool unshared evidence
Each member reads unique facts once before preferences are debated.
Why this step exists
The group table contains every relevant card.
Success check
The group table contains every relevant card.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each member reads unique facts once before preferences are debated.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Each member reads unique facts once before preferences are debated.” does not yet meet this declared check: The group table contains every relevant card.
Correction: Return to the start of “Pool unshared evidence”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The group table contains every relevant card.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
05
Apply the declared aggregation
Weight only the validated task evidence, allow defer when the threshold is unmet and record minority reasons.
Why this step exists
The final choice follows the written rule, not the loudest voice.
Success check
The final choice follows the written rule, not the loudest voice.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Weight only the validated task evidence, allow defer when the threshold is unmet and record minority reasons.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Weight only the validated task evidence, allow defer when the threshold is unmet and record minority reasons.” does not yet meet this declared check: The final choice follows the written rule, not the loudest voice.
Correction: Return to the start of “Apply the declared aggregation”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The final choice follows the written rule, not the loudest voice.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
06
Compare three benchmarks
Score group, majority and best individual against the key for each case.
Why this step exists
The report shows when the group did worse than its best member.
Success check
The report shows when the group did worse than its best member.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Score group, majority and best individual against the key for each case.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Report only group accuracy during the water-plan aggregation table.
Correction: Add majority and best-member columns within the water-plan aggregation table.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
07
Review unequal sensitivity
Identify cases where one member had better evidence and ask whether discussion diluted it.
Why this step exists
A concrete rule change addresses the failure.
Success check
A concrete rule change addresses the failure.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Identify cases where one member had better evidence and ask whether discussion diluted it.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Identify cases where one member had better evidence and ask whether discussion diluted it.” does not yet meet this declared check: A concrete rule change addresses the failure.
Correction: Return to the start of “Review unequal sensitivity”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “A concrete rule change addresses the failure.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
08
Retest the rule
Use six novel cases with roles rotated and affected-person constraints unchanged.
Why this step exists
Improvement occurs on new cases without erasing dissent or defer options.
Success check
Improvement occurs on new cases without erasing dissent or defer options.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Use six novel cases with roles rotated and affected-person constraints unchanged.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Use six novel cases with roles rotated and affected-person constraints unchanged.” does not yet meet this declared check: Improvement occurs on new cases without erasing dissent or defer options.
Correction: Return to the start of “Retest the rule”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Improvement occurs on new cases without erasing dissent or defer options.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise affects real care, hiring, benefits, liberty or safety.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
First judgement — Correlated answers reduce the value of aggregation.
Correct / safer
Lock independent answers before discussion when completing the water-plan aggregation table.
Wrong / riskier
Let early speakers set everyone’s starting answer during the water-plan aggregation table.
Competence in water-plan aggregation table — Social status is not evidence accuracy.
Correct / safer
Estimate task-specific reliability from practice cases.
Wrong / riskier
Weight rank, charisma or a broad intelligence score.
Best-member comparison — Groups with unequal sensitivity can underperform their strongest member.
Correct / safer
Compare the group with the best individual on the same cases.
Wrong / riskier
Report only group accuracy during the water-plan aggregation table.
Affected-person rights — Aggregate performance does not legitimise harmful decisions.
Correct / safer
Permit defer and preserve constraints when completing the water-plan aggregation table.
Wrong / riskier
Vote away a person’s rights for a higher score.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.