commons/compare.md

The compare: options on the table, side by side

The shared view of how each system answers the same questions. Two layers sit here:

1. Prompt self-maps (the primary compare). Each entity's Step-1 output, how they build each piece, placed side by side and attributed per entity (colour-coded in the Notion dashboard and the app view; in the repo each entity's answers carry its name). It shows, across the line, the different options people are using and where we need to work to align.
2. BEAM readings: the structural score on the same 21. The BEAM side-by-side lives in the app (/compare in BEAM), so it is not duplicated here.

⚠️ The Step-1 prompt is being rebuilt. The self-map format below is a placeholder until the new prompt lands; that output is what fills the "options on the table" per entity.

Prompt self-maps: options on the table

One block per entity, attributed. Populated from each entity's Step-1 self-map once the redone prompt ships.

Entity	Their approach: the building blocks	Where it lines up / differs
OmniOne	(self-map from the new prompt, pending)	the baseline others compare against
(partner)	(their self-map, pasted in on entry, attributed)	(across the line: align / borrow / gap)

BEAM readings

Two things sit side by side in the app, on purpose:

• BEAM position: how strongly the requirement is evidenced today (band + evidence tier). A = genuine source document · B = partial / authenticity uncertain.
• Architecture maturity: whether the tool that actually backs the requirement is built: Live · Live (partial) · Designed · Candidate · Gap (OmniOne's Architecture Register).

Numbers are never restated here. OmniOne's live reading, and every partner's, is in the BEAM app at /compare; a number copied into a file goes stale the day the instrument moves.

OmniOne / N.E.O.S.: the honest read

The agreements are strong; the architecture that enforces them is mostly still to build. That gap is what this commons is for.

• Where OmniOne would bring stronger evidence (the requirements held at evidence tier B): Pluralism (#14) · Interoperability (#16) · Commons stewardship (#17) · Onboarding and education (#18) · Structural review (#20).
• Where the build itself is thinnest (architecture Gap or Candidate): Adaptive feedback (#9) · Security (#15) · Scoped, revocable authority (#3) · Roles and succession (#10) · Drift detection (#19). These are where co-building has the most to add.

How your options land here

1. You run the Step-1 prompt → it produces your self-map (how you build each piece). That is a direct comparison we can look at.
2. If you enter the Holding ETHOS, your self-map is pasted in, attributed to you: one of the options on the table next to everyone else's.
3. Your BEAM score sits side by side in the app (/compare), not duplicated here.
4. Across the line, we see what to align on. Where you are stronger we borrow from you; where we are, you borrow from us. Both directions.