G GCI ACCOUNTABILITY LAB
PRIVATE READ-ONLY BETA · v0.1
Central Saanich / Decision trace 001

Same evidence.
Different values.
Accountable decisions.

Can two reasonable readers understand a public decision, disagree about its priorities, and still identify what was authorized and what actually happened?

Case: Mount Newton Pathway, Phase 2Compiled: October 26, 2026Public municipal sources only
Evidence first

What the public record actually establishes

Estimated cost, authorized funding and actual expenditure are different facts. The following figures do not change when you change perspectives.

Authorized for detailed design
$300,000
February 23, 2026 Council recap · District record
Option 2B estimated project cost
$5.6M
Concept estimate, not a construction authorization · Project options
Actual Phase 2 expenditure
Unverified
Requires project accounting records. No amount is inferred.
Important: A 2024 public construction expectation has moved to a potential 2027-2028 start. The variance is documented; its causes and project-specific actual spending are not established in this evidence set. Neither is evidence of wrongdoing.
Commitment → authority → outcome

Decision timeline

Outcome reconciliation

What can be concluded?

Phase 2 was discussed publicly with a 2025 construction expectation. In February 2026, Council authorized design work only, and the District said construction might begin in 2027 or 2028.

What cannot yet be concluded

  • Why the construction timing changed
  • How much of the design budget was spent
  • Whether a later construction budget was approved
  • Whether Phase 2 delivered measurable benefits
Phase 1 opened in 2025. That is not evidence that Phase 2 was completed.
Controlled comparison

Choose the reading experience

Use A as control; B adds the approved Framing and Definition Check.

Standard evidence brief

From a 2025 construction expectation to a 2027-2028 possibility: Council approved $300,000 for design and asked for an updated cost estimate. Actual Phase 2 spending and completed outcomes are not yet substantiated in this record.

Source-backed chronologyNo explicit value-framing analysis
Unanswered evidence

Questions we must not pretend to have resolved

Inspectable evidence

Claim-by-claim provenance

Each statement links to a public municipal source, identifies its evidentiary class and states what would be an invalid inference. District publications are attributable sources, not independent audits.

Source register

External links open the original publisher. This prototype does not crawl pages, silently refresh sources or claim that a live page will remain unchanged.

IDPublicationDateLimits
Controlled beta / 5 questions

Can a reader reconstruct the accountability record?

Use the same five questions for Version A and Version B. Assign test versions externally and do not let testers switch arms mid-session. Answers stay on the device unless the tester explicitly exports them.

Current reading version: B / Enhanced. This beta cannot statistically prove superiority. A 12-20 person pilot can reveal comprehension failures and usability issues.
Governance & boundaries

How this beta fits the existing GCI doctrine

01 / Common Evidence Brief

Facts include dates, source interests, uncertainty and limitations. The facts do not change with a lens selection.

02 / Disagreement Record

Show where priorities, values, forecasts and proposed remedies differ without altering facts or manufacturing consensus.

03 / Outcome Reconciliation

Follow a public statement through Council authority, actual expenditure and observed results; leave missing links visibly unknown.

CPR-A-L six-question integrity check

  1. What was committed to?
  2. What was actually authorized?
  3. Whose interests were considered?
  4. What happened?
  5. Did the results match the promises or forecasts?
  6. What can we learn and not repeat?

Technical and democratic limits

  • Static, local-first, read-only HTML and embedded public data
  • No user accounts, tracking, polling or representative claims
  • No AI runtime, LLM API, database or paid hosting dependency
  • Not affiliated with the District or Civic Lens
  • No public accusation, scoring of officials or automated judgment
  • Unverified expenditures and decisions remain unknown
  • Canonical Hermes/Obsidian record untouched
Verification contract

Acceptance gates for the first beta

This is a research prototype for understanding evidence and disagreements, not legal advice, an official municipal report or a substitute for certified original minutes. Corrections require updating and re-testing the evidence file before regenerating the HTML.