IE High-Stakes Governance Protocol (IE-HSGP) — Provisional v0.1

Note (provisional status)

This High-Stakes Governance Model is provisional and intended as practical policy infrastructure for applying Imposition Ethics (IE) to extreme, time-pressured, high-uncertainty situations (war, famine, pandemics, mass disasters, catastrophic risk). It is not a sealed or authoritative specification, and it may contain omissions, edge cases, and implementation assumptions that should be revised as experience, criticism, and better evidence accumulate.

Use this model as an iterable governance system:

• adopt what is useful,

• pilot where uncertainty is high,

• measure outcomes with transparent methods,

• document failure modes (unintended impositions, metric gaming, enforcement errors, inequitable burden concentration),

• and update rules when results show better least-imposition alternatives or weaknesses in consent, due process, and repair.

No part of this model should be treated as moral “permission” to impose. Coercive actions remain recognized moral costs and are selected only in the operational sense of evidence-backed least-imposition under binding guardrails, with time bounds, oversight, and repair.

​

1) Scope

Applies to situations with:

• imminent or ongoing mass harm (large-scale death, injury, displacement, rights violations),

• time pressure that prevents normal deliberation,

• high uncertainty and adversarial conditions,

• risk of irreversible outcomes.

Examples (non-exhaustive):

• War/armed conflict, invasion, civil conflict

• Famine/food system collapse

• Pandemic/biological events

• Catastrophic natural disasters (earthquake, hurricanes, wildfire megaseasons)

• Mass refugee flows and state collapse

• Critical infrastructure collapse (grid, water, supply chain)

• Severe cyber events affecting essential services

• Nuclear escalation risk (policy-level only; no operational guidance)

2) IE stance in high-stakes contexts

High-stakes conditions do not suspend IE. They increase:

• the likelihood that some imposition is unavoidable,

• the burden of proof for irreversible constraints,

• the need for tight time bounds, oversight, and repair.

Core operating rule:
Maximize valid consent and reversibility; when coercion is unavoidable to prevent or contain large-scale active imposition, apply the minimum necessary constraint, targeted and time-bounded, with due process and repair.

3) Binding guardrails (non-negotiable constraints)

These are mandatory constraints on any high-stakes action.

G1) Minimax (protect the worst-off)

Prefer options that minimize the worst individual/group imposition, not merely the average.

G2) Anti-concentration

Avoid dumping burdens on low-power groups (poor, disabled, minorities, migrants, political dissidents) even if totals improve.

G3) Irreversibility priority

Treat irreversible impositions (death, torture, permanent detention, mass displacement, lifelong deprivation) as exceptionally costly. Require stronger evidence and stricter oversight.

G4) Error-cost / wrongful-imposition control

Under uncertainty, prefer reversible, reviewable, and appealable interventions. Track and aggressively correct false positives.

G5) Minimal sufficiency (no excess force)

Actions must be no broader than needed to stop/contain the threat.

G6) No moral laundering

Record remaining impositions as moral costs; do not reclassify them as “good,” “permitted,” or “required.”

4) High-stakes classification and authority tiers

To prevent “emergency” becoming a blank check, use explicit tiers with escalating requirements.

Tier H0 — Elevated risk (no emergency powers)

• normal processes; preparatory measures; voluntary programs

Tier H1 — Acute threat (limited emergency powers)

• time-bounded executive actions allowed

• mandatory review within short fixed window

• strong transparency and evaluation plan

Tier H2 — Active mass harm (expanded but constrained powers)

• targeted coercive measures allowed only under strict minimal sufficiency

• automatic sunset; legislative renewal required

• independent oversight audit cadence increases

Tier H3 — Catastrophic risk (maximum constraint on decision-makers)

• highest evidentiary burden feasible

• “irreversibility priority” is strongest

• multiple independent reviews required (red team, legal, ethics, evidence office)

• post-action reparations plan is mandatory

5) Evidence standard under high uncertainty (IES-H)

When RCTs are impossible, “science” means disciplined inference, not rhetoric.

Evidence tiers (high-stakes)

• E1 (Strong causal): high-quality quasi-experimental evidence; consistent across contexts

• E2 (Convergent): multiple independent lines (observational, mechanistic, historical analogs) point same direction

• E3 (Provisional emergency): best-available evidence + strong plausibility + strict pilot/time-box + rapid evaluation + automatic rollback triggers

Required evidence properties

• explicit uncertainty ranges (confidence bands)

• subgroup impact estimates (minimax/anti-concentration)

• adversarial analysis (how it fails if opponent acts)

• falsification tests (what would prove the policy wrong)

• measurement burden assessment (data collection can itself impose)

6) High-Stakes Imposition Impact Assessment (HS-IIA) — Mandatory procedure

Every major action in H1–H3 must complete an HS-IIA (even if abbreviated initially, then completed within a fixed time window).

Step 1 — Map affected agents and rights-like boundaries

• direct population, indirect third parties, neighboring states, future persons (where relevant)

• vulnerable groups explicitly listed

• what each group would refuse if able (boundaries), not only preferences

Step 2 — Identify the active imposition

Name the ongoing or imminent imposition:

• violence/predation

• starvation

• involuntary infection exposure

• displacement

• infrastructure deprivation (water/power)

• coercive exploitation

Step 3 — Enumerate options (include non-coercive)

Include:

• diplomacy/negotiation/ceasefire options (when applicable)

• voluntary incentives and logistics

• targeted restrictions

• structural separation (corridors, zones, time/space partition)

• do-nothing (explicitly scored)

Step 4 — Score each option (0–3 rubric; auditable)

Score per option:

• Severity (S), Scope (N), Duration (D), Reversibility (R), Surprise (P), Power asymmetry (A), Risk imposed (K)

Total: T = S + N + D + R + P + A + K

Step 5 — Apply guardrails (must-pass constraints)

• minimax check: worst-off outcome by option

• concentration check: who bears the burden

• irreversibility check: flags + extra review

• error-cost plan: appeals, correction, compensation, rollback triggers

Step 6 — Select “least-imposing sufficient” option

Choose the lowest-imposition option that is credibly sufficient to contain the threat, subject to guardrails.

Step 7 — Safeguards package (required)

• time bounds + sunset date

• transparency: plain-language rationale and criteria

• due process: notice → response → appeal (even in compressed form)

• mitigation: exemptions/accommodations where feasible

• repair: restitution, compensation, reinstatement paths

• evaluation plan + triggers for rollback/escalation

Step 8 — No moral laundering statement (required)

Document:

• remaining impositions

• why unavoidable

• what mitigations/appeals/repairs exist

• what evidence triggers revision

7) Domain modules

7A) War and armed conflict (policy-level constraints)

Primary objective (IE framing)

Contain and end active large-scale imposition (killing, coercion, territorial domination) while minimizing new impositions.

Hard constraints

• prioritize nonviolent and consent-maximizing options first (diplomacy, withdrawal offers, third-party mediation) when feasible

• civilian minimax: minimize worst-off (typically civilians) even when strategically costly

• targeting constraint: prefer highly targeted measures over broad collective punishment

• time bounds: authorizations expire quickly without renewal

• transparency + oversight: independent review of claims, proportionality reasoning in IE terms (scope/severity minimization)

Mobilization/conscription doctrine (high-imposition)

• default: volunteer forces and consent-based incentives

• if coercive mobilization claimed “unavoidable,” require:

  • H3-level review

  • minimax/anti-concentration enforcement (no dumping on the poor)

  • narrow duration, exemptions, conscientious objector paths, noncombat alternatives

  • robust compensation + lifelong repair obligations for harms

Prisoners/detention

• detention only for containment, not punitive suffering

• strict due process, time bounds, periodic review, humane conditions

• wrongful detention repair is mandatory

Post-conflict repair

• restitution and reconstruction prioritized

• documentation, truth processes, compensation funds

• institutional learning audit (see section 10)

7B) Famine and mass deprivation (food/water/energy)

Primary objective

Reduce involuntary deprivation (starvation, thirst, exposure) with minimal coercion and minimal burden concentration.

Default strategy order (least-imposition preference)

1. logistics + procurement expansion (voluntary contracting, import corridors)

2. targeted cash/food transfers (maximize choice/consent)

3. rationing only if unavoidable, with transparent rules and appeals

4. coercive seizure controls only if strictly necessary, time-bounded, and reparable

Allocation under scarcity

• publish criteria in advance (as early as possible)

• minimax: prioritize preventing worst-off outcomes (death, severe malnutrition)

• avoid friction-based rationing (hidden queues, paperwork burdens)

• reversible updates; rapid appeals

Price controls / restrictions (if used)

• require evidence they reduce deprivation without creating black-market coercion

• time-bounded; evaluate quickly; rollback triggers

Anti-exploitation enforcement

• focus on containment of coercive predation (hoarding extortion, violent theft)

• enforcement must be targeted, appealable, and non-punitive beyond containment/restitution

7C) Pandemics / contagious public health emergencies

Primary objective

Reduce involuntary infection exposure and severe outcomes while minimizing autonomy impositions.

Intervention ladder (least-imposition order)

1. information + voluntary behavior supports

2. access enablement (free masks/tests/ventilation upgrades)

3. targeted protections for high-risk settings

4. time-bounded mandates only if evidence shows net minimax improvement

Mandate constraints

• minimal sufficiency and narrow scope

• time bounds + clear end conditions

• exemptions/accommodations with low friction

• strong due process for enforcement and penalties

• monitor unequal burdens (anti-concentration)

7D) Mass disaster response (earthquake, flood, wildfire, infrastructure collapse)

Primary objective

Prevent death/injury and severe deprivation; restore autonomy quickly.

Key doctrines

• evacuations: prefer voluntary + support; if mandatory, time-bounded and narrowly scoped

• property access restrictions: minimal necessary; clear passes/appeals

• emergency shelters: dignity standards; privacy; non-coercive access where possible

• reconstruction: prioritize restoring choice and preventing displacement concentration

7E) Refugee flows and state collapse

Primary objective

Minimize coercive displacement harms and prevent exploitation/violence.

Constraints

• minimize detention; prefer supervised release and support

• non-punitive processing; transparent timelines

• avoid concentration harms (camps as long-term coercion); pursue integration options

• strong anti-retaliation and anti-exploitation enforcement

7F) Catastrophic risk and long-horizon threats (climate, systemic collapse)

Primary objective

Reduce extreme future impositions without imposing unjust concentrated burdens now.

Required approach

• emphasize consent-based transitions, subsidies, and enabling infrastructure

• if coercive regulation is claimed necessary, require:

  • explicit minimax justification across generations

  • anti-concentration constraints domestically

  • time-bounded rules with periodic reassessment

  • compensation/transition repair for those burdened

8) Emergency powers: structural anti-abuse design

Any emergency order must include:

• short automatic expiration (sunset)

• renewal only via explicit legislative vote at fixed intervals

• independent oversight audit cadence (weekly/biweekly in H2/H3)

• public reporting: scope, enforcement actions, errors, appeals, repairs

• post-emergency “imposition audit” and compensation plan for wrongful harms

9) Communication standard (reduces surprise-imposition)

Public messaging must state plainly:

• what is being constrained and for how long

• why (threat description + evidence tier)

• what alternatives exist

• how to appeal or get accommodations

• what ends the policy (metrics/conditions)

10) Repair, restitution, and post-mortem learning (mandatory)

10.1 Repair obligations

For any high-stakes coercive policy, government must provide:

• compensation for wrongful impositions

• reinstatement pathways when feasible

• medical/psychological care for harmed populations where relevant

• public acknowledgment and corrective action plans

10.2 Post-mortem Imposition Audit (within fixed time)

• what impositions occurred (intended and unintended)

• distribution analysis (who bore burdens)

• error analysis (false positives/negatives)

• evidence performance (predictions vs outcomes)

• policy updates and guardrail improvements

11) Templates (copy-ready)

A) HS-IIA (one-page form)

• Situation tier (H0–H3):

• Threat description (active imposition identified):

• Affected agents (including vulnerable groups):

• Options considered (including non-coercive):

• Evidence tier per option (E1/E2/E3) + uncertainty:

• Scoring per option (S,N,D,R,P,A,K) + total:

• Guardrails check (minimax/anti-concentration/irreversibility/error-cost):

• Selected option and minimal sufficiency rationale:

• Safeguards (sunset, due process, appeals, mitigation, repair):

• Rollback/escalation triggers:

• No moral laundering statement:

• Public communication summary:

B) Emergency Order Record (minimum required fields)

• legal authority invoked:

• scope and duration:

• enforcement mechanism:

• appeals/accommodations:

• oversight schedule:

• reporting schedule:

• repair fund trigger conditions:

12) Practical verification checklist (does this actually resolve high-stakes objections?)

• Different reviewers using HS-IIA converge on similar scores and same option.

• Worst-off group outcomes improve or at least do not worsen (minimax enforced).

• Emergency powers expire unless re-justified with updated evidence.

• Wrongful imposition rates are tracked and compensated.

• Post-mortems produce real rule changes (guardrails evolve).