Shared-Burden Comparison Table¶
Evaluation matrix — instantiates Feasible-Alternative Comparator Calibration
Forces every option onto the same dimensions under the same constraints, so none gets to be abstract and exempt from burdens the others carry.
A comparison goes wrong the moment one option is described concretely — burdened with every cost and detail — while its rival floats abstract and exempt. Shared-Burden Comparison Table closes that gap by laying every option out as a row and every decision-relevant dimension as a column, then insisting that each cell be filled on the same terms. If reliability, cost, siting, and side effects are charged against the proposal, they are charged against every alternative too; no option gets to be the vague, cost-free abstraction. Each option must arrive with its feasibility evidence — the demonstration that its claimed numbers are real — so the table compares like against like. Its defining act is symmetry of burden across a shared axis set: it does not decide, and it does not filter out ideals; it makes the field commensurable so a fair decision is even possible.
Example¶
A regional power authority is choosing how to add generating capacity, and the debate is lopsided: the incumbent gas proposal is scrutinized on cost, emissions, and build time, while "just go renewable" is invoked as an obvious, burden-free good. The table refuses the asymmetry. Rows: new gas, utility-scale solar-plus-storage, offshore wind, and demand-side efficiency. Columns, applied to all: levelized cost, firm capacity contribution, build-and-permitting time, land and grid-connection needs, emissions, and residual reliability risk. Every option must bring an evidence packet — an interconnection study, a real permitting timeline, a storage-duration estimate — so no cell is filled with hope.
The completed grid does something the shouting match could not: it shows that "just go renewable" resolves into specific options with specific burdens — solar-plus-storage carries siting and firm-capacity gaps; offshore wind carries a long permitting tail — while gas carries emissions and stranded-asset risk. Now every option stands on the same six dimensions with evidence attached. Whichever way the authority decides, it decides against a table where no option got a free pass and none stayed comfortably abstract.
How it works¶
- Fix the shared dimensions. Choose the columns that actually matter to the decision and apply them to every option, so scoring is on one axis set rather than each option's favorite metric.
- Demand evidence per cell. Require each option to supply the feasibility evidence behind its entries — a source, a study, a real timeline — so numbers are backed, not asserted.
- Charge burdens symmetrically. Any cost or risk booked against one option is checked against all; an option left blank on a hard dimension is flagged, not excused.
- Publish the filled grid. Emit the completed matrix as the shared evidentiary base the decision rule and sensitivity checks read from — without itself declaring a winner.
Tuning parameters¶
- Dimension set — which columns count. Omit a dimension and you exempt every option from it; add too many and the grid drowns the signal.
- Commensuration method — common units, normalized scores, or qualitative bands. Hard numbers enable ranking but overreach where evidence is thin; bands are honest but blunt.
- Evidence bar — how strong a source each cell requires. A high bar keeps the table honest but slows it and may leave cells empty.
- Weighting stance — equal weights or explicit priorities across columns. Weighting sharpens the picture but is exactly where hidden preferences sneak in, so it belongs out in the open.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is that it enforces the archetype's core symmetry: options are evaluated jointly on shared dimensions rather than one-at-a-time, which is what stops a concrete option from being unfairly outscored by an abstract one — the classic gain from joint over separate evaluation.[n1] The evidence requirement adds a second guard: an option can no longer post attractive numbers it cannot defend.
Its failure mode is a rigged column set or a rigged scale. Dropping a dimension where the favored option is weak, or choosing units that flatter it, produces a table that looks rigorous while quietly pre-deciding the outcome; weighting can do the same silently. The guarding discipline is to fix the dimensions and weights before the scores are seen, keep them public and challengeable, and treat any empty or unevidenced cell as a visible gap rather than a pass.
How it implements the components¶
Shared-Burden Comparison Table fills the evaluation-matrix components — the ones that make the field commensurable:
shared_dimension_scorecard— its core artifact: the options-by-dimensions grid scored on one common axis set.feasibility_evidence_packet— it requires each option's cells to be backed by real feasibility evidence, so entries are demonstrated, not asserted.
It does not apply the reject-only-if-dominated rule — that is Best Feasible Alternative Test's best_feasible_comparator — nor sort residual shortfalls into tradeoffs versus disqualifiers (defect_vs_disqualifier_boundary, Defect/Disqualifier Sort). It builds the scored field; deciding on it happens next.
Related¶
- Instantiates: Feasible-Alternative Comparator Calibration — the table supplies the commensurable, evidenced field the decision rests on.
- Consumes: Feasible Option Inventory for the option rows and Status Quo Costing Sheet for the honestly priced status-quo row.
- Sibling mechanisms: Feasible Option Inventory · Ideal Comparator Filter · Status Quo Costing Sheet · Best Feasible Alternative Test · Defect/Disqualifier Sort · Comparison-Class Review Memo · Feasibility Sensitivity Probe
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Assessment, Review & Assurance
Rationale: Shared-Burden Comparison Table operates as a bounded evaluation of existing evidence or work that produces a finding or disposition because it forces every option onto the same dimensions under the same constraints, so none gets to be abstract and exempt from burdens the others carry.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Shared-Burden Comparison Table as 'Forces every option onto the same dimensions under the same constraints, so none gets to be abstract and exempt from burdens the others carry', so its operative form is Assessment, Review & Assurance.
Nearest alternative: Analysis, Modeling & Optimization — Shared-Burden Comparison Table includes features of an analytical, modeling, inference, comparison, or optimization procedure that derives insight or a solution, but its defining operation is a bounded evaluation of existing evidence or work that produces a finding or disposition.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; medium confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Philosophy
Origin pattern: Cross-disciplinary synthesis
Present-day reach: Universal
Rationale: Subjecting every option to the same constraints and burdens is a philosophical fairness and parity-of-reasoning discipline.
Related originating lineages:
- Law & Governance — Equal-treatment and proportionality review resist exemptions that privilege one option.
- Mathematics — Mathematical modeling, proof, and abstract-structure practice supplies a parallel or contributing lineage for the mechanism's defining operation: forces every option onto the same dimensions under the same constraints, so none gets to be abstract and exempt from burdens the others carry.
- Operations Research — Multi-criteria decision tables normalize alternatives on common dimensions.
- Rhetoric — Argument comparison exposes asymmetrical standards and selective objection.
Review resolution: The blind reviewers agree that philosophy is the primary origin and differ only on reported ambiguity, alternate origin disagreement, origin mode disagreement. I preserve every independently explained alternate from both records rather than imposing a numeric cap. I retain cross_disciplinary_synthesis because the combined record shows material contributions from several lineages. The broader reach of universal records portability separately from historical provenance, and encyclopedia_synthesis=true preserves the affirmative synthesis judgment where either reviewer identified one.
Attribution caveat: The table is a synthetic artifact built from normative parity and decision-analysis form.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Reconciled after independent review; medium confidence.
Notes¶
[n1] Joint versus separate evaluation, studied by Christopher Hsee, shows that people judge options very differently when they see them side by side on common attributes than when each is judged alone — side-by-side evaluation surfaces tradeoffs that separate evaluation hides. A shared-dimension table is the deliberate joint-evaluation frame. ↩