Renata Sokolova — Table
From the Meridians Wiki · Public · Maintained · joint
Blended · multi-seat table. Renata needs several people in one strategy or crisis world, with attribution. Her lower shipped lean reflects open multi-seat governance, not lack of demand.
Snapshot
| Archetype | shared-desk |
| Boundary | A shared world with private seats and public context where authorised. |
| Use | Strategy/crisis table; several seats, one world. |
| Lane | business |
| Deal-breaker | A blended answer with no author or seat-level information boundary. |
Why she buys
Renata is not buying a shared document. She wants the team’s commitments and disagreements to remain legible: who saw what, who chose which move, and which consequence belongs to which decision. Attribution is the table’s learning mechanism.
The causal loop
Prepare the world → seat the participants → reveal only authorised information → each seat commits → the world remembers → the group asks what it caused → replay from another seat.
Opening objection
“A multi-seat simulation will flatten our disagreement.” It will if governance is implicit. The product must make the seat, authority, and attribution explicit or Renata should not use it.
What the model captures
Shared actors, role-bounded information, candidate moves, and branch-level attribution. It can support bounded table experiments. It does not yet provide a complete governance model for persistent teams.
What would lose her
Anonymous contributions, a hidden moderator, shared secrets crossing seats, or a score that rewards consensus instead of exposing the causal difference.
Shipped / direction boundary
Scenario branches and MCP seats exist in bounded laboratory runs. Persistent multi-seat governance, full private-beat delivery, and automated MWS remain direction.
Seeded situation
- Situation: a research desk must decide whether to publish a contested crisis note.
- Actors: editor, analyst, client, source, market counterparty.
- Incentives: truth, speed, reputation, revenue, and source protection.
- Private information: each seat’s confidence, source access, and risk tolerance.
- Constraints: deadline, attribution, legal review, and incomplete evidence.
- Open Fate question: does publishing uncertainty build trust or destroy the desk’s authority?
- Candidate moves: publish; hold; split public/private notes; ask for one more source.