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.
Requested in return
Bring one real disagreement or stalled collaboration, state what happens without an agreement, and review the written terms within seven days.
One 45-minute session and a seven-day review window
Verification
Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms
State
Live offer
Exposure
Exposure unknown
Condition
Reviewing
Protection
Review current terms
Funding, guarantees and verification
Cross-view cooperationA live moral disagreement
Funding and verification details
Exposure unknownEvidence laterNeeds review
State
Live offer
Exposure
Exposure unknown
Condition
Reviewing
Protection
Review current terms
Overview
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.
Key details
Your action
Executes only after both sides accept frozen terms and evidence requirements.
Charge timing
No payment is authorized from this card. Any future charge requires the existing agreement payment path.
Verification
Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms
Recipient
Recipient not selected
Verification & funding
Effect on this action: Requires adapter recheck. This is context, not a verdict.
Evidence: Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms
Screening and review context
Review workflow
Why this record can or cannot be relied on yet
Each card exposes the current review state, factor codes, and the next human-controlled step before matching, disclosure, or completion trust.
current status
Awaiting reviewer
Status card
Status: open.
Why this status: the visible status is still a review state, not completion, custody, enforceability, or moral endorsement.
status_visiblehuman_review_required
Next step: Treat this as a review state, not a claim of completion, legal enforceability, custody, or moral endorsement.
action evidence
Information needed
Action evidence
No reviewable proof method is specified in this record.
Why this status: no reviewable proof method or evidence locator is attached yet.
evidence_rule_namedevidence_sufficiency
Next step: Attach or inspect one scoped artifact for each factual action claim before relying on the record.
baseline confidence
Not assessed
Counterfactual baseline
Not assessed: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.
Why this status: a confidence heuristic is not a completed counterfactual review; a reviewer must inspect the dated no-trade evidence.
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.
Cross-view cooperationA live moral disagreementParticipant-stated importance 7/10Counterparty minimum acceptable importance 5+/10Confidence: Medium
Not a platform moral ranking. These scores reflect participant-stated views, not Moral Trade's assessment of moral value.
Proposed action
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.
Requested reciprocal action
Bring one real disagreement or stalled collaboration, state what happens without an agreement, and review the written terms within seven days.
Compromise destination
Mutually acceptable cooperation
Verification and term
Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms | One 45-minute session and a seven-day review window | trust level 3/5
Action evidence
Calendar attendance plus mutually acknowledged written terms
Baseline confidence
Not assessed: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.
Third-party externality review
Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
Who might object to this trade?
Could this create bad incentives?
Could this harm people or values not represented by the parties?
Does this proposal need external reviewer input?
Current status
open
Current discount
Low-risk launch proposal; no financial consideration.
Respond to this offer
Sign in or create an account to discuss this offer and agree on terms.
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.
Terms before theory
Guarantees and limits
Guarantees / rules
Executes only if threshold, match, or mutual-acceptance conditions clear.
Authorization is released or no obligation is created if conditions fail.
Evidence is required before reliance when the route names a verification standard.
Reviewer and challenge paths apply where the existing product supports them.
No public exposure by default for private messages, raw evidence, or contact details.
Anti-threat and safety policies apply before commitment reliance.
Limits
Moral value is not guaranteed.
Downstream impact is uncertain.
Counterfactual additionality is estimated, not proven.
Sponsor match may be capped or unavailable.
Tax treatment depends on jurisdiction.
Some information may stay unavailable until review.
Private messages, exact wishes, raw evidence, and contact details stay sign-in or reviewer gated.Saved-offer and interest state is not public by default.
baseline_credibility
Next step: 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.
externality review
No listed trigger detected
Externality review
Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
Why this status: Automatic screening found no listed trigger. This does not establish that third-party harms were reviewed or ruled out.
externality_review_requiredhuman_review_required
Next step: Ask who is affected outside the two parties, what harm pathway exists, and what remedy or challenge window is available.
Next step: This score reflects the participant's own stated priorities. It is not a platform judgment about objective moral value.
appeal scope
Review scope information
Appeal scope
Appeals should target the specific reviewed claim, evidence row, baseline concern, disclosure decision, or policy flag.
Why this status: appeals require reviewer handling and must stay within the reviewed issue.
appealable_review_scopereviewer_summary
Next step: If you think this review decision is wrong, appeal the specific claim that was reviewed. Appeals do not reopen unrelated moral disagreements by default.
How to read these screening results
These cards identify missing inputs and automatic screening results. They do not certify completion, additionality, or safety. A completed review must be supported by a scoped review record, not inferred from a URL, a score, or the absence of a flag.
Ellen
Public comment |
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.