community-impact-assessment

name: community-impact-assessment description: "Facilitate ETHOS-wide or ecosystem-wide processing when harm extends beyond direct parties -- surface systemic patterns, identify structural gaps, and route governance change recommendations through ACT so that recurring conflicts become structural improvements." layer: 6 version: 0.1.0 depends_on: [harm-circle, proposal-creation, act-consent-phase, agreement-amendment]

A. Structural Problem It Solves

Some conflicts are symptoms of structural problems. When the same type of conflict recurs across different participants, or when a single incident shakes community-wide trust, addressing only the interpersonal dimension leaves the systemic cause intact. The community watches the same pattern repeat and concludes that the governance system cannot learn from its own failures. Without a structured process for community-level processing, the community either ignores systemic patterns (each conflict is treated as an isolated case) or attempts informal processing (unstructured town halls where the loudest voices dominate and individual privacy is violated). This skill provides a structured pathway from individual conflict to systemic analysis to governance change. It separates the interpersonal dimension (handled by harm-circle) from the structural dimension (handled here), ensuring that individual conflicts produce community learning without sacrificing the privacy of the people directly involved.

B. Domain Scope

This skill applies when conflict impact extends beyond the directly involved parties to affect the broader ETHOS or ecosystem. Scope includes: single incidents that affect community trust (a high-profile agreement breach), patterns of similar conflicts across different participants (three disputes in six months about the same governance gap), conflicts that reveal structural deficiencies (a harm circle finding that an advice process was never defined for a decision type), and repair agreement outcomes that imply community-wide changes. The assessment operates at two scales: ETHOS-wide (within a single unit) and ecosystem-wide (across ETHOS). Out of scope: conflicts that are purely interpersonal without systemic implications (handled by harm-circle and coaching-intervention), structural disputes between ETHOS about authority boundaries (Layer V polycentric-conflict-navigation), and ongoing monitoring for systemic capture (Layer VII safeguard functions).

C. Trigger Conditions

A harm circle finding identifies a structural gap that contributed to the harm
A pattern of three or more similar conflicts within an ETHOS is identified through triage record analysis
A repair agreement includes a structural change commitment with community-wide implications
An escalation-triage assessment routes a situation to Tier 4 (community assessment)
A single incident affects community-wide trust in governance processes (high-severity, broad-scope triage assessment)
A coaching intervention reveals a widespread skill gap suggesting a systemic onboarding or training deficiency

D. Required Inputs

Triggering evidence: the conflict records, triage assessments, harm circle findings, or pattern analysis that triggered the assessment. Format: linked record IDs and a summary of the systemic concern.
Scope determination: whether the assessment is ETHOS-wide or ecosystem-wide, based on where the impact has been felt. Verified against domain-mapping.
Privacy boundaries: explicit identification of what information from underlying conflicts can be shared in the community process and what must remain private. Individual harm circle disclosures are private by default.
Convener identity: who is calling the assessment -- typically a facilitator, steward, or the escalation-triage process. The convener must not be a party to any of the underlying conflicts.
Participant list: who participates in the community processing session. For ETHOS-wide assessments, all ETHOS members are invited. For ecosystem-wide assessments, representatives from each affected ETHOS participate.

E. Step-by-Step Process

Receive the trigger and confirm scope. The convener reviews the triggering evidence and confirms that the situation meets the threshold for community impact assessment: harm extends beyond direct parties, a pattern exists, or a structural gap has been identified. The convener determines the scope (ETHOS-wide or ecosystem-wide) and documents the rationale. Timeline: within 7 days of the triggering event or pattern identification.
Establish privacy boundaries. The convener works with the facilitators of the underlying conflict processes (harm circles, coaching interventions) to define what information can be shared with the community. The principle: systemic findings are shared (what structural gap exists, what pattern was identified); individual details are private (who was involved, what was said in harm circles). Individual participants in underlying conflicts may consent to sharing their experience, but this is never required. The privacy boundary is documented before any community session.
Prepare the systemic analysis. The convener and a small analysis team (2-3 people with governance knowledge and no involvement in the underlying conflicts) review the triggering evidence and prepare a systemic analysis. The analysis identifies: the pattern or structural gap, the governance mechanisms that failed or were absent, the conditions that allowed the pattern to persist, and preliminary hypotheses about what structural changes could address it. The analysis is shared with participants in advance of the community session.
Facilitate the community processing session. The convener facilitates a structured community dialogue. The session has three phases. Phase 1 -- Impact: participants share how the systemic issue has affected them and the community's trust in governance. This is not a re-litigation of individual conflicts; it is an expression of community impact. Phase 2 -- Systemic Analysis: the analysis team presents their findings and hypotheses. Participants discuss, challenge, and refine the analysis. Phase 3 -- Recommendations: participants collectively generate governance change recommendations that address the structural gap. Recommendations are framed as proposals, not mandates.
Document the assessment report. The convener creates the community impact assessment report using impact-assessment-template.yaml. The report documents: the triggering evidence (with privacy protections), the scope, the community processing session outcomes, the systemic findings, and the specific governance change recommendations. The report distinguishes between findings (what was identified) and recommendations (what changes are proposed).
Route recommendations through ACT. Each governance change recommendation is formalized as a proposal through proposal-creation and enters the standard ACT process (advice, consent, test). The community impact assessment report is linked to each proposal as supporting evidence. The proposals are not fast-tracked -- they go through the same consent process as any other governance change, ensuring community-wide buy-in.
Follow up on implementation. The convener tracks whether the recommended proposals are submitted, processed through ACT, and implemented. If proposals are rejected through the consent process, the convener documents the rationale and assesses whether the systemic gap remains unaddressed. Unaddressed systemic gaps are flagged for the next quarterly Layer VI review.

F. Output Artifact

A community impact assessment report following assets/impact-assessment-template.yaml, containing: unique assessment ID, date, convener identity, scope (ETHOS-wide or ecosystem-wide), triggering evidence with privacy-protected summaries, privacy boundary documentation, systemic analysis findings, community processing session record (impact statements summarized, analysis discussion, recommendations), each governance change recommendation with rationale and ACT proposal link, implementation tracking, and linked records. The report is accessible to all participants in the community processing session and to the governance bodies responsible for processing the recommendations.

G. Authority Boundary Check

The convener has assessment and facilitation authority. They convene the process, manage the community session, and ensure the report is completed. The convener cannot impose governance changes -- recommendations must go through ACT.
The community processing session has deliberative authority. Participants discuss, analyze, and generate recommendations. The session cannot pass binding decisions -- its output is recommendations that enter the ACT process as proposals.
Individual privacy is protected by the convener's authority boundary. The convener cannot disclose private details from underlying conflict processes, even if participants in the community session request them. The privacy boundary established in step 2 is the convener's mandate.
The analysis team has analytical authority -- they review evidence and present hypotheses. They cannot pre-determine the recommendations; those emerge from the community processing session.
No participant in the community session can use the session to re-litigate an already-resolved individual conflict. The convener redirects re-litigation attempts to the systemic dimension: "We are examining the structural conditions, not re-opening the individual situation."

H. Capture Resistance Check

Capital capture. A systemic finding implicates governance processes that benefit a major funder. The funder pressures the convener to narrow the assessment scope or soften the findings. The structural safeguard is the community processing session: findings are generated and validated collectively, not by the convener alone. The funder participates as one voice among many. If the funder attempts to derail the session, the convener names the dynamic and ensures all participants have equal voice. The assessment report documents any capture attempts.

Charismatic capture. A charismatic leader steers the community processing session toward findings that protect their governance philosophy, dismissing recommendations that would change processes they championed. The structured three-phase session format provides the safeguard: the impact phase ensures all voices are heard before analysis begins, the systemic analysis is prepared by an independent team (not the charismatic leader), and recommendations emerge from collective deliberation. The convener monitors for dominance and applies equal-voice facilitation.

Emergency capture. A crisis is used to prevent or defer community impact assessment -- "we have bigger problems right now." Emergency deferral is legitimate for active crises but is time-bounded: the assessment is deferred for the duration of the emergency plus 30 days for stabilization, then proceeds. The deferral is documented and cannot be extended indefinitely. Crises that were themselves caused by the systemic gap being assessed are explicitly not grounds for deferral.

Informal capture. "We already talked about this informally and everyone is fine" is used to prevent a formal assessment. The convener verifies this claim by checking the pattern evidence: if three similar conflicts occurred and all were "resolved informally," the systemic question remains. Informal resolution of individual conflicts does not address the structural conditions that produced the pattern. The assessment proceeds based on the pattern evidence, not on claims of informal resolution.

I. Failure Containment Logic

Community session attendance is low: the convener assesses whether the low attendance reflects assessment fatigue, lack of awareness, or active avoidance. The session can proceed with any number of participants, but low attendance is documented and the findings note the limitation. A follow-up session may be scheduled with broader outreach.
Re-litigation dominates the session: the convener pauses and reinforces the systemic framing. If re-litigation persists, the convener documents the dynamic and continues with participants who engage with the systemic analysis. The underlying individual conflict processes are not reopened by the community session.
No consensus on systemic findings: disagreement about systemic findings is documented in the report as competing analyses. Multiple recommendations may emerge from different analyses, each entering ACT as separate proposals. The community decides through the consent process which changes to adopt.
Recommendations are rejected through ACT: the convener documents the rejections and their rationale. If the systemic gap remains unaddressed, the documentation serves as input for future assessments and pattern analysis. Rejected recommendations are not re-submitted without new evidence.
Assessment reveals harm beyond Layer VI scope: if the assessment identifies patterns that suggest systemic capture (Layer VII) or structural inter-ETHOS disputes (Layer V), the convener routes those findings to the appropriate layer and documents the handoff.

J. Expiry / Review Condition

Community impact assessment reports do not expire -- they are permanent governance records that inform pattern analysis and future assessments. Implementation tracking for recommendations is reviewed at 30, 60, and 90 days after the ACT process completes. If recommended proposals were adopted, the assessment tracks whether the implemented changes actually address the identified structural gap. If the same pattern recurs after implementation, a follow-up assessment is triggered. The community-impact-assessment skill itself is reviewed annually as part of the Layer VI review cycle. Quarterly pattern analysis across all conflict records (triage assessments, harm circles, coaching plans) identifies whether new community impact assessments should be convened. Minimum review interval for implementation tracking: 30 days.

K. Exit Compatibility Check

When a participant exits during an active community impact assessment, the assessment continues -- the systemic analysis is not dependent on any individual's participation. The exiting participant's contributions to the community processing session remain part of the record (they participated while a member). If the convener exits, a replacement is assigned within 14 days. If the exiting participant was a party to one of the underlying conflicts, the privacy boundaries for that conflict are maintained regardless of exit. The 30-day wind-down period does not apply to community impact assessments because the assessment is a community process, not an individual commitment. The exiting participant's departure may itself become data for the systemic analysis if it is related to the structural gap being examined.

L. Cross-Unit Interoperability Impact

Ecosystem-wide community impact assessments require coordination across ETHOS. The convener is selected from a neutral position or from an ETHOS not directly implicated in the findings. Each affected ETHOS sends representatives to the community processing session. The assessment report is distributed to all affected ETHOS. Recommendations that require changes in multiple ETHOS go through each ETHOS's ACT process independently -- the community impact assessment cannot impose changes across units. Cross-ETHOS pattern analysis is conducted by comparing conflict records across units using standardized triage and harm circle template data. If the assessment identifies a pattern unique to one ETHOS, that ETHOS conducts its own ETHOS-level assessment rather than processing it at ecosystem scale. Cross-ecosystem community impact assessments (between different NEOS ecosystems) are deferred to Layer V's inter-ecosystem coordination protocol.

OmniOne Walkthrough

Over six months at SHUR Bali, escalation-triage records reveal a pattern: three separate conflicts, involving different participants, all stemmed from the same structural gap. Conflict 1: AE member Dmitri made unilateral supply purchases without consulting affected circle members (routed to coaching-intervention, CI-SHUR-2026-003). Conflict 2: AE steward Mira approved a schedule change for the food production circle without running an advice phase (routed to harm-circle, HC-SHUR-2026-009). Conflict 3: AE member Chen proposed a budget reallocation at a steering meeting and the proposal was consented to in 10 minutes with no advice phase -- two weeks later, three TH members reported they were never consulted and the reallocation affected their projects (routed to harm-circle, HC-SHUR-2026-011).

Triager Kai reviews the three triage records during a quarterly pattern analysis and identifies the common thread: all three conflicts involved AE circle decisions made without adequate advice phases. The advice process exists in the field agreement, but the AE circle's operating agreement does not specify which decisions require advice, who must be consulted, or what constitutes an adequate advice phase. Kai triggers a community impact assessment (Tier 4) with ETHOS-wide scope.

Convener Leila, a facilitator from the wellness circle (not involved in any of the three underlying conflicts), accepts the assessment. She establishes privacy boundaries with the facilitators of the three underlying processes: the structural finding (advice process gap in AE operating agreement) is shareable; the individual conflict details (who said what in harm circles, coaching session content) are private.

Leila assembles an analysis team of two governance-experienced members from non-AE circles: Tomasz (infrastructure circle) and Priya (education circle). They review the three triage records, the AE operating agreement, the field agreement's advice process section, and the harm circle outcomes. Their systemic analysis identifies the root cause: the AE circle's operating agreement lists decision categories (operational, financial, personnel) but does not specify which decisions require an advice phase or who constitutes "affected parties" for each category. The advice process is described in the field agreement at a general level but was never operationalized for the AE circle's specific decisions.

The community processing session convenes with 28 of 42 active OmniOne members. In Phase 1 (Impact), members share how the advice-process gap has affected them. A TH member, Elif, says: "I committed resources to a project that was defunded by a decision I never knew was being made. I feel like my participation does not matter for financial decisions." An AE member, Juno, says: "I support the advice process in principle, but we genuinely do not know which of our daily operational decisions need it and which are within our delegated authority. The ambiguity creates confusion, not just for the people we are supposed to consult, but for us."

In Phase 2 (Systemic Analysis), Tomasz and Priya present their finding: the gap is structural, not behavioral. The field agreement establishes the advice process as a governance principle, but the AE operating agreement never translated that principle into operational rules. The three conflicts were not caused by bad actors -- they were caused by an operating agreement that did not give participants clear guidance about when and how to consult.

In Phase 3 (Recommendations), participants generate three governance change proposals. Recommendation 1: amend the AE operating agreement to include a decision classification chart specifying which decisions require advice, who must be consulted for each category, and what constitutes an adequate advice phase. Recommendation 2: create a template for all ETHOS operating agreements that includes a decision classification section, preventing the same gap in other circles. Recommendation 3: establish a 90-day review cycle for operating agreements where circles specifically assess whether their decision-making practices match their written agreements.

Edge case: during Phase 2, Chen (who was involved in Conflict 3) attempts to re-litigate the specific budget reallocation, arguing it was within his authority. Leila redirects: "This session examines the structural gap that made it unclear whether that decision needed an advice phase. The individual situation has been addressed through its own process. Our question here is: what do we change structurally so that ambiguity does not recur?" Chen accepts the redirection.

The community impact assessment report is filed as CIA-SHUR-2026-002. The three recommendations are formalized as proposals and enter the ACT process. Recommendation 1 passes through consent within two weeks. Recommendation 2 passes with a minor amendment. Recommendation 3 receives an objection about the 90-day interval being too frequent and is amended to a 6-month cycle before passing. Leila tracks implementation over 90 days: the AE circle adopts the decision classification chart and applies it in three subsequent decisions, each of which includes an advice phase for the first time.

Stress-Test Results

1. Capital Influx

A community impact assessment is triggered after two conflicts revealed that a major funder's grant conditions were influencing governance decisions in ways that bypassed the advice process. The funder participates in the community processing session and argues that grant compliance is a fiduciary obligation, not a governance capture issue. The analysis team distinguishes between legitimate fiduciary compliance (which should be transparent and integrated into governance) and governance capture (where financial conditions override consent-based decision-making). The systemic finding: the ecosystem has no protocol for integrating external funding conditions into governance decisions transparently. The recommendation: create a funding-transparency agreement requiring all external funding conditions to be disclosed and processed through ACT before acceptance. The funder's financial status does not prevent the finding or the recommendation -- the community processing session gives equal voice to all participants. The assessment report documents the funder's argument alongside the community's analysis, creating a governance record that prevents future undisclosed funding influence.

2. Emergency Crisis

A natural disaster at SHUR Bali reveals that the emergency decision-making process lacked clarity about authority boundaries, leading to three conflicts about who had authority to allocate scarce resources. The community impact assessment is deferred for 30 days after the crisis stabilizes, then convened. The systemic analysis identifies a structural gap: the emergency protocol defined escalation timelines but did not define decision authority for resource allocation during emergencies. The community processing session generates a recommendation: amend the emergency protocol to include a resource allocation authority chart with clear delegation and accountability. The emergency context does not prevent systemic learning -- it motivates it. The assessment report links the emergency conflicts to the structural gap and tracks whether the recommended protocol amendment prevents similar conflicts in future emergencies.

3. Leadership Charisma Capture

A community impact assessment is convened after a pattern of conflicts revealed that a respected founder's informal influence was shaping governance decisions outside of formal processes. During the community processing session, several participants are reluctant to name the pattern because of the founder's social standing. The convener facilitates by focusing on the structural question: "We are examining whether our governance processes have adequate protections against informal influence, regardless of who exercises it." The analysis team presents the finding as a structural gap: the ecosystem's governance processes do not include checks for informal pre-decision influence. The recommendation: establish a norm that all governance decisions include a check-in question at the consent phase: "Has anyone been privately asked to support or oppose this decision?" The founder's charisma cannot prevent the structural finding because the finding addresses the system, not the individual.

4. High Conflict / Polarization

Two deeply polarized factions in an ETHOS have generated six interpersonal conflicts in three months. The community impact assessment examines the systemic conditions fueling the polarization. The analysis team finds that the ETHOS's decision-making process allows slim-consent passage of proposals (one objection withdrawn under social pressure counts as "no objection"), creating a dynamic where factions mobilize to ensure their proposals pass and the other faction's proposals face objections. The systemic finding: the consent process needs a minimum-engagement threshold -- proposals cannot pass consent without a minimum percentage of affected parties actively participating (not just failing to object). The community processing session is itself polarized, but the structured three-phase format prevents the session from devolving into factional debate. The recommendations address the structural incentive for factionalism rather than the factions' positions. GAIA Level 4 coaching informs the analysis: the polarization may yield a "Doing Both Solution" where both factions' core needs are met through structural redesign.

5. Large-Scale Replication

At 5,000 participants across 15 SHUR locations, community impact assessments operate at two scales. ETHOS-level assessments handle location-specific structural gaps. Ecosystem-level assessments handle patterns that span locations. Cross-location pattern analysis uses standardized triage and harm circle data to identify systemic trends: if three locations report similar advice-process gaps, an ecosystem-level assessment is convened with representatives from each location. The assessment process scales because it does not require all participants to attend -- ETHOS-level assessments involve only the affected ETHOS's members, and ecosystem-level assessments use representative delegation. AI agents assist by scanning triage records for cross-location patterns and flagging potential assessment triggers. The impact-assessment-template.yaml remains identical at all scales; what changes is the scope, the participant composition, and the coordination complexity.

6. External Legal Pressure

A government authority requests access to community impact assessment reports as part of an organizational compliance review. The assessment reports document systemic findings and governance recommendations -- they do not contain private details from underlying conflicts (those were protected by the privacy boundary in step 2). The reports demonstrate structured governance self-correction, which may satisfy regulatory requirements for organizational accountability. If legal authorities mandate that community impact assessments include specific compliance elements (for example, mandatory reporting of certain types of systemic risk), those requirements enter through agreement-creation as jurisdictional compliance. The assessment process itself does not change; it adds a jurisdictional compliance check for the specific legal requirement. Individual participants retain their legal rights independently of the community assessment process.

7. Sudden Exit of 30% of Participants

A mass departure itself triggers a community impact assessment. The departure of 15 members is a systemic event that shakes community trust and may reveal structural conditions that drove the departure. The convener establishes privacy boundaries: the reasons individual members gave for leaving are private unless they chose to make them public. The systemic analysis examines: were there governance failures that contributed to the mass departure, were the departed members disproportionately from a specific role or ETHOS, and what structural changes could address the conditions that enabled the departure? The community processing session helps remaining members process the impact collectively rather than individually, preventing isolation and blame dynamics. Recommendations may include governance amendments to address the identified conditions. Active community impact assessments already in progress continue with reduced participation. If a quorum concern arises (too few participants for a representative session), the convener documents the limitation and considers whether the assessment should be paused until membership stabilizes or proceed with available participants. All existing assessment reports remain valid governance records.