Make the path to judgment visible.
The governing method
The M Reasoning Protocol is the Institute-stewarded method for consequential inquiry.
It makes evidence, assumptions, uncertainty, alternatives, disagreement, and revision visible while leaving judgment with an accountable human being.
Why it exists
Consequential inquiry requires more than an answer.
An answer can appear complete while concealing weak evidence, untested assumptions, unresolved disagreement, or material uncertainty. The Protocol creates a visible path from question to judgment so that reasoning can be examined, challenged, corrected, and continued.
Its purpose is not to make every decision identical. It is to make the basis of a consequential decision more intelligible and reviewable.
01 · Method and boundary
Method, not conclusion
The Protocol provides a common structure for asking a consequential question, establishing what is known, identifying what remains uncertain, considering credible alternatives, and preserving a record that can be reviewed and corrected.
It does not guarantee agreement. It does not eliminate uncertainty. It does not transfer responsibility for a decision away from the human being who makes it.
The governing method is not the product
The M Reasoning Protocol is not M, M Corp., an artificial intelligence model, an interface, or a workspace. The M Institute stewards the normative method.
A product may implement the Protocol by translating its requirements into workflows and features. No product or implementation is identical to the Protocol itself.
The Institute
Stewards the normative method.
An implementation
May translate the method into workflows and features.
The human being
Remains responsible for judgment and what follows.
02 · Required disciplines
A reviewable path through inquiry.
At a minimum, inquiry conducted under the Protocol must follow seven disciplines.
-
01
Frame the question
State the decision, issue, or claim being examined and explain why it matters.
-
02
Establish the evidence
Identify the relevant sources, their provenance, and their source state.
-
03
Separate kinds of claim
Distinguish observation, fact, inference, interpretation, and assumption.
-
04
Expose limits
Identify uncertainty, missing information, material constraints, and what cannot presently be known.
-
05
Test alternatives
Consider credible competing explanations and the strongest relevant disagreement.
-
06
Preserve the record
Keep the sources, reasoning, material revisions, and human decisions available for review.
-
07
Leave judgment human
Identify who decides and who remains responsible for what follows.
03 · Evidence and revision
The record must remain open to examination.
Sources must remain identifiable
Where edition, translation, format, provenance, or transformation affects interpretation, that source state must be made visible.
A transcription, searchable text, translation, summary, or AI interpretation must not be presented as though it were the original source. Material transformations and corrections must remain traceable.
A serious method remains open to challenge
Disagreement is not an interruption of the Protocol. Credible alternatives, contrary evidence, and the strongest relevant objections belong in the record.
Material corrections create traceable new versions rather than silently replacing what came before.
04 · Human accountability
Judgment remains human.
Reasoning can be supported, structured, compared, and challenged without being surrendered. The Protocol may help a person see more clearly, but it does not transfer responsibility to a system, institution, or procedure.
A completed record must make clear what the evidence established, what was inferred or interpreted, what remained uncertain, who reached the judgment, and who remains responsible for the consequences.
Make reasoning visible. Judgment remains human.
05 · Implementation
One normative method. Distinct implementations.
The Institute maintains the normative Protocol and its revision history. Implementations may differ in interface, workflow, technical architecture, and intended use, but they must preserve the Protocol's required distinctions and leave judgment and responsibility human.
Commercial implementation does not confer authority to redefine the normative method.
Governing distinction
The Institute stewards the method. An implementation may put it into practice. Neither the method nor the implementation replaces the person responsible for judgment.
06 · Version and change record
A governing method must show how it changes.
The public Protocol record will identify the authority, date, version, and material changes associated with each formally adopted edition.
- 01 Approval recordAdoption status, adoption authority, and effective date.
- 02 Version historyThe current approved version and all prior approved versions.
- 03 Change recordMaterial change notes and any superseded provisions.
- 04 Implementation guidanceSupporting guidance associated with the approved edition.
A version number appears only after that version has been formally approved, dated, and archived.
Read Charter Article VIII