cartographer
From many voices
to a shared map
Deliberation does not begin when people enter a room. It begins when different experiences become visible to one another.
ACTUAL AGGREGATE · IDENTITIES REMOVED
PERSPECTIVE MAP
13 individual reports · 2 clusters
Shared frontline frame
Different premise
Perspective Map · individual text removed
you can see this dock from qr
HOW cartographer WORKS
Adaptive listening, before the meeting
Surveys are broad but fixed. Interviews are deep but costly. cartographer recovers context asynchronously across many participants.
MORE SCALE
MORE DEPTH
SURVEY
Broad reach
Fixed questions
Low cost
cartographer
Broad + adaptive
AI follow-ups
Asynchronous
INTERVIEW
Individual depth
Human follow-ups
High cost
PURPOSE
Create a better starting point for discussion—not automate the discussion.
cartographer is a pre-deliberation and sensemaking layer.
HOW cartographer WORKS
Ask → Probe → Reflect → Map
The shared map is prepared before synchronous discussion begins.
01
ASK
A participant answers
a common question
in their own words.
02
PROBE
AI asks a follow-up
when context or reasons
remain unclear.
03
REFLECT
A self-report helps
the participant check
how they were understood.
04
MAP
Recurring reasons,
tensions and uncertainty
become a shared view.
SYSTEM BOUNDARY
The system structures voices. It does not vote on them.
Adaptive questioning · individual reflection · collective sensemaking
Preserve Difference, Not Just the Average
Differences are prompts for dialogue—not errors to average away.
WHAT BECOMES VISIBLE
See perspectives, not just answers
Semantic proximity shows shared frames without collapsing minority views into an average.
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS
FRONTLINE IMPACT
SHARED FRAME
10 reports
DIFFERENT PREMISE
3 reports
A shared frame
Different wording can still reveal a common premise.
A different premise
A small cluster may be analytically important.
An outlier remains visible
The map does not erase a participant to create consensus.
Actual aggregate geometry · names, roles and individual text removed
WHAT BECOMES VISIBLE
Disagreement is an agenda
The issue landscape shows what needs discussion, clarification—or no immediate debate.
POLARIZATION
Improve work-sharing and information flow before reorganizing teams.
4 ↔ 4
agree / disagree · 5 unsure
UNCERTAINTY
Frontline input has been adequately reflected in the process.
12
of 13 are unsure
CONSENSUS
Reform means changing collaboration—not only redrawing teams.
10
agree · 1 disagree · 2 unsure
The output is a map of what deserves attention—not a final answer.
Actual aggregate · n = 13 mapped individual reports
CHALLENGES DISCOVERED
Input is not deliberation
Consultation, sensemaking, facilitation and decision are different layers of one process.
cartographer TODAY
01
COLLECT INPUT
People articulate
views and reasons.
02
SHARED SENSEMAKING
Patterns, tensions and
uncertainty become visible.
03
FACILITATED DELIBERATION
People learn, respond
and reconsider together.
04
LEGITIMATE DECISION
Authority, rules and
accountability apply.
DAY 2 WORKSHOP DISTINCTION
Digital tools can gather and structure input. They do not make the decision.
cartographer strengthens the pre-deliberation and sensemaking layer.
CHALLENGES DISCOVERED
Technology should multiply facilitators
It should reduce the invisible work of mapping voices—not replace the relational work of facilitation.
WHAT THE TOOL CAN REDUCE
Sensemaking burden
Collecting input across time
Adaptive follow-up questions
Clustering recurring reasons
Summarizing uncertainty
WHAT FACILITATION STILL MUST DO
Relational work
Recognition and reciprocal listening
Mutual learning and trust
Working through conflict
Course correction across rounds
＋
Free scarce synchronous time for the work that cannot be automated.
Day 2 theme: build technology that supports and multiplies facilitators.
OPEN DESIGN QUESTION
Legitimacy lives in the process around the map
A sensemaking tool can support an accountable process. It cannot define that process by itself.
FRAMING
Who defines—or revises—the question?
RECOGNITION
How are emotion, context and dissent preserved?
AUTHORITY + CONSEQUENCE
Who decides, who must respond, and what follows?
RECOURSE
How can people contest or correct the interpretation?
SHARED
MAP
not a verdict
What rules and responsibilities connect a shared map to a legitimate decision?
Tool → accountable process → legitimate institution
Ref
demo’s dashboard