Factors are the provable source of a given case for or against a solution. It is how you make your case accurate in order to figure out the efficiency score of the solution.

Weights are how provable the sources (factors) are. Weights measure the viability of the factor to the best measurable degree within the context that it exists.

Before it is possible to rank any type of weight there has to be some understanding of the context that it exists. An example of context could be something like city planning. Solutions within this context could be tested because their impact on humans is directly measurable. A more unknown context, something like theoretical physics, would not be able to be directly measured. At least not in the short term.

The context for measuring weights matters and can change.

There are a few rules which will help guide us as we shape the weights and continue to refine them.

1. The more people impacted directly the hire the weight should be.
2. Weights are not biased, cases are biased.
3. The characteristics of the source may demand additional weights.
4. Wights for different contexts must leave room for change.

Rule 1. If there is a solution in place that is already being utilized by people, then the number of people using it and the outcome is the most reliable and should be the highest weight. For instance, a vaccine that millions of people have taken will be more measurable than a vaccine that only a few dozen people have taken. This is based in the Law of Large Numbers.

Rule 2. There is an important reason for weights to remain objective. That is because, in order to agree on our shared pursuit of human flourishing, our understanding of truth is what allows us to progress the fastest. The quicker we bypass our biases, the quicker we can see our provable factors for what they are. Solutions are our attempt to weave factors together in a way which produces the best outcome for the cause. Solutions rely heavily on ‘cases for’ and ‘cases against’ to be as accurate as possible by closely resembling our human experience. In this way, cases represent a provable bias and relies on factors and weights to be objective, so that the outcomes are truly represented.

Rule 3. Factors with very similar sources and, therefore, similar weights are not necessarily equal. For instance, if two similar vaccines help the same number of people, but vaccine A has different symptoms than vaccine B. There may need to be a weight which identifies their efficacy. Let’s say in the factor for A, the symptoms of many participants were few, but in B people with an allergy developed some treated able symptoms. The weight for A should be higher than B. In this case, a new weight would be introduced. If these weights were an 8, now, A would be a 9 and B would remain an 8. Weights above a 9 would also be moved. So a 9 would become a 10, etc.

Rule 4. It may seem obvious, but over time sources may become obsolete. For instance. In the future, it is conceivable that trails for vaccines would include gut biome or genomic testing as part of the trials. If new vaccines enter the context, weights will need to adapt to reflect changes in treatment measures.

Accounting for Negatives

In other cases, like in the Rule 3 example, what happens if a symptom is hugely problematic and could completely displace the factor? This is why there are always two sides to every solution. If there is a ‘case for’ vaccine A then there should be a ‘case against’ to represent the opposing or negatives of the same or similar factors.