A real project, thinking in public
What are we trying to achieve? What stands in the way? What will we do about it? Explore how Rufus and David are working through those questions for Reason Commons itself.
An introduction to the goal below.
The Logical Thinking Process, made accessible through AI, is used in the world to help people think and act better together.
Four conditions are recorded as necessary for the goal. Open one to see the statement, who accepted it, and its connection.
The work is resourced beyond Rufus and David's spare time.
Critical success factorReal people use the tool, with Second Renaissance as the first user and testbed.
Critical success factorThe product is something people can picture themselves using.
Critical success factorRufus and David have a clear agreement on ownership, licensing and commitment.
David’s September contribution, accepted for now in October. The connection says “contributes to.”
David lacks confidence that there is a coherent product to demo.
contributes to ↓ Inspect connectionUndesirable effectDavid is held back from testing with potential users.
David would want to test with a potential user if he had a demo he felt was coherent.
Read David’s contribution ↗Rufus accepted this direction. That records a choice, rather than evidence that it worked.
ChangeRufus and David use the tool on their real work now while they keep building and redesigning it.
This page puts the project’s own reasoning in view. Building the demonstration does not resolve the difficulties it records.
These are accepted action statements. Their acceptance does not tell us whether they were completed, and their expected effects have no accepted connections in this selection.
Rufus starts a friction log, and Rufus and David record in it each place the tool falls short while they use it.
ActionDavid uses the tool on a real question of his own outside this collaboration, and Rufus may do the same.
ActionRufus and David together run their agreement on ownership, licensing and commitment through the tool.
Each view shows the same published selection. Where no connections have been accepted, statements stay separate.
What does the goal depend on?
5 statements · 4 connections 02What is happening, and why?
18 statements · 10 connections 03Which needs are we trying to meet?
5 statements · 0 connections 04What direction have we accepted?
1 statement · 0 connections 05What would have to happen first?
15 statements · 0 connections 06What actions have been recorded?
6 statements · 0 connectionsOnly accepted statements and accepted connections are included. The selection preserves who accepted each item and its original wording.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock and David Joseph
Accepted by Rufus Pollock and David Joseph
Accepted by Rufus Pollock and David Joseph
Accepted by Rufus Pollock and David Joseph
These accepted statements have no accepted connections in this selection.
Rufus and David both want the work to become a startup as well as seek philanthropic funding, and do not want it to depend on philanthropic funding in the long term; David is, if anything, keener on the startup.
ObservationThe Reason Commons repository is released under the MIT licence from 2026-09-26, and Rufus and David are happy for all the software, the app included, to be MIT-licensed.
ObservationRufus and David agreed the goal of their collaboration on 2026-09-25.
Undesirable effectRufus and David do not know who their users are in general, though for the nonprofit-oriented version they have candidate communities in the AI-risk debate, effective altruism and Second Renaissance.
ObservationDavid would want to test with a potential user if he had a demo he felt was coherent.
Rufus and David have no customers.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
Rufus and David have seen no sign of product-market fit.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
Rufus and David cannot yet show an average user a clear picture of how they would use the product.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
No one other than Rufus and David uses any app they have built.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
Rufus and David have no customers.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
Rufus and David have no resources for the work other than their own time.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
Rufus and David have no resources for the work other than their own time.
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
Accepted by Rufus Pollock
David is held back from testing with potential users.
Accepted by David Joseph
David is held back from testing with potential users.
Accepted by David Joseph
No connections in this view have been accepted. The statements below remain separate.
Read the statements below. Drawing arrows between them would add reasoning that has not been accepted.
Real people use the tool, with Rufus and David as the first users.
NeedRufus and David learn what the tool must do by using it on their own real work.
PrerequisiteRufus and David use the current app on their real work now, rough as it is.
NeedThe tool Rufus and David put in front of people is good enough to be worth using.
PrerequisiteRufus and David keep building and redesigning the tool before relying on it.
No connections in this view have been accepted. The statements below remain separate.
Read the statements below. Drawing arrows between them would add reasoning that has not been accepted.
No connections in this view have been accepted. The statements below remain separate.
Read the statements below. Drawing arrows between them would add reasoning that has not been accepted.
The work is resourced beyond Rufus and David's spare time.
ObstacleRufus and David have no resources for the work other than their own time.
ObstacleRufus and David have not applied for funding.
ObstacleRufus and David have no customers.
ObjectiveReal people use the tool, with Second Renaissance as the first user and testbed.
ObstacleRufus and David have seen no sign of product-market fit.
ObjectiveThe product is something people can picture themselves using.
ObstacleRufus and David are not clear what the product should look like.
ObstacleRufus and David cannot yet show an average user a clear picture of how they would use the product.
ObjectiveRufus and David have a clear agreement on ownership, licensing and commitment.
ObstacleRufus and David have never discussed ownership or profit share.
Intermediate objectiveRufus and David both want to turn the work into a startup.
Intermediate objectiveThe Reason Commons software is released under the MIT licence.
ObstacleNo one other than Rufus and David uses any app they have built.
ObstacleRufus and David do not know who their users are in general, though for the nonprofit-oriented version they have candidate communities in the AI-risk debate, effective altruism and Second Renaissance.
No connections in this view have been accepted. The statements below remain separate.
Read the statements below. Drawing arrows between them would add reasoning that has not been accepted.
Rufus and David together run the choice of near-term focus, grant applications or the product and customers, through the tool, from notes to a tree to a decision.
ActionRufus and David together run their agreement on ownership, licensing and commitment through the tool.
ActionRufus starts a friction log, and Rufus and David record in it each place the tool falls short while they use it.
ActionDavid uses the tool on a real question of his own outside this collaboration, and Rufus may do the same.
ActionRufus and David shortlist funders, starting with Coefficient Giving and the Survival and Flourishing Fund and adding others found by research or by asking around.
ActionRufus and David apply to the shortlisted funders through Life Itself, using the one-page pitch.
No matching statements or connections in this view. Try another word or clear the search.
This is one selected snapshot of real collaboration reasoning, prepared on 22 October 2026. It is not a live progress dashboard.
Named people are willing to build on a statement or connection for now. A statement accepted by Rufus alone is shown that way; one accepted by David alone is shown that way too. Acceptance does not establish truth or unanimity.
Many statements were recorded in September 2026. Their original wording is preserved, including references to the product at that time. The detail view shows the recorded acceptance context. Continued acceptance in the source does not establish that a condition is still current.
Some imported statements have no identified original contributor. Those entries say so. An AI-originated connection is attributed to the AI, with its human endorsers listed separately.
| Perspective | Statements | Connections |
|---|---|---|
| Our goal and conditions | 5 | 4 |
| What stands in the way | 18 | 10 |
| Where needs pull two ways | 5 | 0 |
| The change we have chosen | 1 | 0 |
| Obstacles and prerequisites | 15 | 0 |
| Actions to take | 6 | 0 |
Release 2026-10-22.1. The download contains the same selection as the page.
This accepted-only snapshot contains no selected outcome reports or measurements. An accepted action is not a completed action; a chosen direction is not an observed benefit.
This is the first release of this demonstration. Original acceptance context is available on each item. There are no earlier public releases here to compare.
Use Reason Commons in an AI conversation to work through your own goal or problem. The AI helps structure the thinking and keep the record; people decide what to accept or challenge.
Try it on your own question ↗Start with what you are trying to achieve and what makes it difficult.
Inspect the statements, their connections, and who contributed them.
Accept a fragment for now, challenge a connection, or keep it open.
Continue from what was saved, and review the reasoning as you learn.