Renata Sokolova — Table

# Renata Sokolova — Table

> **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.

Raw Markdown source