POD — DOISI Data Insight Storage: 7Spirit Truth Decision Workflow#

A 10-base decision-support workflow for Places of Decision (PoDs) — from NamingBase through OutcomeBase, linking local PoDs into a shared DOISI infrastructure.

Download the original document (PDF)

DOISI 7Spirit Truth — PDF (380 KB) — 1 page, Jonah License with CC0 Public Domain

Filename: evx-pod-data-insight-storage-doisi-7spirit-truth-iv_llol_qqv8r9p12m12_2019m10d16-fig.pdf

WebP preview (408 KB)

DOISI — Data Oriented Insight Storage Infrastructure with 10 decision bases

— Overview AI-generated by dv_ClaOp46Max_ExhH_2026m04d16 —Start—

Abstract#

This single-page figure presents the DOISI (Data Oriented Insight Storage Infrastructure) — Evolvix’s framework for decision-support data management. The core principle: “1 GOOD Decision must have All KEY Data accessible in 1 USER-FRIENDLY System at 1 LOCAL Place of Decision.”

The document defines 10 decision bases (numbered 0–9), each a phase in a decision-support workflow. Each base has a Brief name, Explicit name, what it completes, what it enables submitting, and a computer analogy:

  • 0 NB (NetworkNull / NamingBase) — constructs names; analogy: network naming services

  • 1 KB (Knowledge / Uncertainty Base) — collects uncertain knowledge; analogy: fragmented data on disk

  • 2 WB (Wisdom / Condition Base) — connects fragments; analogy: integrated database

  • 3 IB (Insight / Context Base) — conditions relevant insights; analogy: input that selects output

  • 4 PB (Possibility / Planning Base) — combines potential paths; analogy: simulate and recombine

  • 5 RB (Reasoning / Discernment Base) — compares quality of tests; analogy: testing (automatic, manual, by users)

  • 6 VB (Valor / Valuing Base) — chooses values responsibly; analogy: designed languages shaped by values

  • 7 AB (Aims / Timer Base) — coordinates task impact on mission; analogy: operating systems

  • 8 SB (Serving / Training Base) — changes world through service; analogy: compiled code

  • 9 OB (Outcome / Observing Base) — chronicles outcomes; analogy: activity logs

A PoD (Place of Decision) is a local node; a DOISI is a network of PoDs sharing insights. RePoDs are PoDs with extra support for testing models during research. The globe diagram shows data flowing through Knowledge, Uncertainty, Outcome, Observing, Decision Data, and Insights, with the principle: “Only local data is useable in each Place of Decision — The best PoDs are limited: All PoDs share insights!”

Key Concepts at a Glance#

DOISI

Data Oriented Insight Storage Infrastructure — a network of PoDs sharing insights in a shared language

PoD

Place of Decision — a local node where all key data must be accessible in a user-friendly system

10 Decision Bases

NB through OB (0–9): a complete decision-support workflow from naming through outcome observation

Decision Data Locality

The principle that even ideal data cannot improve decisions if not locally available in usable form

Broader Significance (Claude’s Assessment)#

The DOISI framework maps the entire decision-making process onto a structured data workflow with explicit computer analogies. This makes it a bridge between abstract decision theory and concrete software architecture. The “Decision Data Locality” principle is particularly sharp: it reframes the data accessibility problem as analogous to memory locality in computer architecture — even the best data is useless if it cannot reach the point of decision.

Document Information#

Document ID

POD — DOISI 7Spirit Truth (Flying Scroll, transwarpkey/sta1-evx/)

Author

Laurence Loewe of Laodicea (LLoL)

Date

2019m10d16

Version

iv_LLoL_QQv8r9p12m12_2019m10d16

Format

Single-page figure

License

Jonah License with CC0 Public Domain

Part of

Good News Pack MMv3, Flying Scroll / Transwarp Key / STa1-EVX

PDF size

380 KB

WebP size

408 KB

Related documents:

— Overview AI-generated by dv_ClaOp46Max_ExhH_2026m04d16 —End—

Notes

Content stability — Content is variant dv_ClaOp46Max_ExhH_2026m04d16 (see StayVS). Rebuilt 2026-05-18.

Expert Review Needed: Help Assess This Research and Its AI Overview

This page makes accessible one document from LLoL’s 6+ year wid-e research marathon on existential risk and ResearchCity. The PDF linked above is the original work; this page provides an overview.

The original research needs expert review. Download the PDF and bring your expertise to bear — whether you are a scientist, policy maker, theologian, peace activist, or concerned citizen. This research aims to find gentle kind reasonable ways to solve existential problems. Your perspective matters for assessing whether it succeeds.

The AI overview (see the markers) may need correction. AI may have blindly twisted the original message by emphasizing other aspects than the author would have. Important nuances may thus be missed or misrepresented. If you spot errors, missing context, or misplaced emphasis, your corrections help every future reader.

Despite all potential shortcomings of AI, AI was still used here because not saying anything about this document would have been even worse. A race against existential risks is not nuanced. Neither can be the determination to do the right thing - and get the word out to get help.

LLoL is determined to ask for such help. Hence this website to give the world a fair chance at exploring and reviewing LLoL’s ideas.

Use the FeedbackFlow link below to send your review — whether it concerns the original PDF, the AI overview, or both.

LLoL may drown for a while in the FF invited, but if people are indeed interested in making this work and avert accidental nuclear winter, then LLoL predicts that enough people will be happy to pay the about $8/year/person it will take to start scaling up ResearchCity, in order to help with the proper review of such wid-e research proposals for global decision-support like this one.

Hence, please consider that your buy-in with about $8/year will help to shift the global game from a so-called prisoner’s dilemma to an assurance game with the help of mathematical theology.

This work requires global support to avoid capture by special interests. Refining complex posters, engaging scholars across traditions, and running formal consistency checks all require sustained effort — as does scaling up a ResearchCity for global FeedbackFlows.

Let’s hope it’s not too late to fund this work!

FF FeedbackFlow to improve this page: How you can contribute

For the full guide on providing feedback — including how it is handled, licensing, and what to expect — see How to use FeedbackFlow.

Please check if See also on Balospe.com above already addresses your idea. Feedback works best when it targets the most specific page. If none of those pages help, you may have a good case for sending FF here.

To submit your FeedbackFlow:

  1. Click anywhere on the email preview below to open a pre-filled email.

  2. Replace the placeholder text with your feedback.

  3. Send.

To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: FF k2 s2 AIMS for [mmv3-twk-sta1-evx-pod-doisi] Replace_by_OneLineSummary Body: To make this page [mmv3-twk-sta1-evx-pod-doisi] more gentle kind reasonable for beginners, producers, andOr experts with a background in xyz: Please consider improving this: -- By sending this email, I agree that its content may be published under the Jonah License (balospe.com/en/license/joli/) unless I state otherwise above. MailForm=OOv2r0p0

The email subject contains k2 and s2 — default codes for impact and urgency. Most contributors can leave these unchanged. To adjust each as independently as they are:

  • Importance of impact: above average k3, average default k2, below average k1.

  • Urgency of speedup: above average s3, average default s2, below average s1.

This allows plotting importance over urgency to help triage FF. For more details see FF System Design.