Personal pledge swap
Posted by Ellen. This dossier combines public terms, discussion, recommendations, interest, and transaction tracking in one record.
Marketplace terms
The marketplace view puts exposure, timing, verification, and failure rules before the full review dossier. It does not bypass the existing response, payment, or review gates.
Operator-supported, non-financial proposal. No payment, escrow, legal enforceability, or automatic disclosure is implied. Either party may stop before accepting final terms. Manual review is required before reliance.
Live offer · Live
Cross-view cooperation pledge → A live moral disagreement donation
No commitment was created.
Terms before theory
Review workflow
Each card exposes the current review state, factor codes, and the next human-controlled step before matching, disclosure, or completion trust.
current status
human reviewStatus: open.
Why this status: human review: the visible status is still a review state, not completion, custody, enforceability, or moral endorsement.
action evidence
needs inputStatus: Needs evidence. Your draft is structurally complete, but no reviewable proof method has been attached yet.
Why this status: needs input: no reviewable proof method or evidence locator is attached yet.
baseline confidence
human reviewNot assessed: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.
Why this status: human review: the baseline has not been assessed enough to clear counterfactual review.
Offer dossier
Operator-supported, non-financial proposal. No payment, escrow, legal enforceability, or automatic disclosure is implied. Either party may stop before accepting final terms. Manual review is required before reliance.
Not a platform moral ranking. These scores reflect participant-stated views, not Moral Trade's assessment of moral value.
I will run one 45-minute structured working session and return a written proposal that states the no-trade baseline, voluntary terms, evidence plan, privacy boundary, and exit conditions.
Bring one real disagreement or stalled collaboration, state what happens without an agreement, and review the written terms within seven days.
Mutually acceptable cooperation
Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms | One 45-minute session and a seven-day review window | trust level 3/5
Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms
Not assessed: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.
Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
open
Low-risk launch proposal; no financial consideration.
Respond to this offer
Contact and response paths stay sign-in and consent gated. Create an account or sign in before sending a message so private wishes, contact details, and agreement history remain tied to a member-controlled record.
Recommendations
Owners can recommend other users' offers from their own offer pages. These public links help people trace trust and substantive overlap.
Owner-published recommendations will appear here once they are added.
Public comments
Each offer has a public comment thread. Comments can be nested, voted on once per user, and linked back to public member profiles.
I will run one 45-minute structured working session and return a written proposal that states the no-trade baseline, voluntary terms, evidence plan, privacy boundary, and exit conditions.
Effect on this action: Requires adapter recheck. This is context, not a verdict.
Evidence: Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms
externality review
passReview whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
Why this status: pass: no offset, payment, or political-adjacent trigger was detected.
participant relative scores
passParticipant-stated importance 7/10; counterparty minimum 5/10. Confidence: Medium.
Why this status: pass: scores are bounded as participant-stated context, not platform ranking.
appeal scope
human reviewAppeals should target the specific reviewed claim, evidence row, baseline concern, disclosure decision, or policy flag.
Why this status: human review: appeals require reviewer handling and must stay within the reviewed issue.
Participant action guide
These prompts are pulled from the public review-workflow contract, so the page shows the same baseline, evidence, safety, score, and appeal instructions that validators check.
Baseline helper
What would you do if this trade did not happen? Be concrete. Mention your current intention, prior behavior, or any evidence that makes your baseline credible.
Needs evidence status
Status: Needs evidence. Your draft is structurally complete, but no reviewable proof method has been attached yet.
Safety boundary
This proposal cannot be published because it resembles a threat, coercive compensation request, or newly escalated harmful behavior.
Participant importance
This score reflects the participant's own stated priorities. It is not a platform judgment about objective moral value.
Appeal scope
If you think this review decision is wrong, appeal the specific claim that was reviewed. Appeals do not reopen unrelated moral disagreements by default.
© 2026 Moral Trade
Ellen
Public comment | 7/14/2026, 2:51:24 PM
Operator review artifact v1 (not independent certification). Baseline: the participant describes what happens without the session or agreement. Voluntariness: either party may stop before accepting final terms. Evidence: calendar attendance and a mutually acknowledged written terms record. Privacy: exact disagreement details remain private unless separately disclosed. Payment: none. Recourse: safety and contact routes remain available. Status: open proposal; manual review required before reliance.