Introducing INQUIRIM: Making the Reasoning Visible
A developing method for examining difficult questions together, while keeping human judgement, disagreement and uncertainty in view.
A developing method for examining difficult questions together, while keeping human judgement, disagreement and uncertainty in view.
I want someone reading the answer to a difficult question to be able to follow how it was reached.
They should be able to see which claims held up, which concerns changed the conclusion and which assumptions still carry weight. If an important perspective was missing, that absence should remain visible. If people disagreed, the final wording should not quietly erase the difference.
That is the ambition behind INQUIRIM, a developing method for structured collaborative inquiry.
Its purpose is to help people reach a good, considered, impartial and evidenced answer. The answer may be conditional. It may expose a gap that prevents a firm conclusion. It should give the person who must act a clearer understanding of the grounds for doing so.
Where the idea began
My interest grew through working across different forms of inquiry and decision-making. I became increasingly interested in what happens when people bring different expertise to the same question.
Their contributions can be individually valuable while remaining difficult to examine together. One person brings operational experience. Another brings research. A third spots a dependency that changes what either contribution means. The eventual answer depends on how those relationships are understood.
I began developing INQUIRIM to give that shared work a more explicit structure.
Many of the principles involved are familiar within research, analysis and facilitation. INQUIRIM builds on that inheritance. Its potential contribution lies in how it connects the question, the claims, the contributions and the resulting answer within a shared record. The value of that combination needs to be tested.
What would participants actually do?
Consider a hypothetical regional authority asking whether to build a flood barrier.
An engineer considers protection under different conditions. A finance specialist examines costs. Local businesses describe disruption. An environmental specialist raises consequences elsewhere along the river.
INQUIRIM would begin by clarifying what the inquiry needs to answer. “Should we build the barrier?” contains several questions: what protection is required, which alternatives deserve examination, whose interests are affected and over what period the options should be assessed.
Participants would then examine explicit propositions, meaning statements that can be supported, qualified or challenged. One might be: “The proposed barrier would provide adequate protection over its intended operating life.”
That gives contributions something specific to address.
An engineering assessment might support the proposition under particular conditions. Another contribution might identify a maintenance dependency. A local observation might reveal a problem requiring investigation. An unresolved question about future conditions would remain a knowledge gap.
Those contributions have different standing. A recollection, an assumption and a documented assessment should not acquire equal authority because they occupy similar cards on a panel. Recording a claim creates an opportunity to examine it; it does not establish its truth.
The answer would develop through examining these relationships. It might support proceeding subject to specified conditions, favour another option or conclude that a critical gap must be resolved first.
The decision-maker would still have to decide. They would have a record against which to question the recommendation.
Human judgement stays accountable
Structure cannot determine which evidence deserves most weight or settle every conflict between legitimate priorities.
Those judgements need people who can explain their reasoning and accept responsibility for it. INQUIRIM is designed to make that responsibility easier to locate and examine.
AI may assist with tasks such as suggesting alternative interpretations or helping to organise material. Its use is optional. Any AI contribution needs an identifiable origin and appropriate checking, and people remain accountable for the judgements they adopt.
The method must also preserve the difference between an inquiry's answer and the eventual decision. Understanding likely consequences can inform a choice without resolving how competing interests should be weighed.
Challenge needs a place in the work
A participant who challenges the flood-barrier proposition should have somewhere to record the concern and its basis. Their contribution should remain connected to the claim it addresses as the inquiry develops.
That does not give every objection a veto. A challenge may rest on a misunderstanding, weak information or an issue outside the agreed scope. It still needs an explicit response appropriate to its significance.
Structured participation also means looking beyond who spoke most. Which relevant perspectives were brought to bear? Which were absent? Did participants have an opportunity to review the developing answer?
One feature being developed is traceable anonymity: using contributor symbols so that a person's organisational status is less prominent during the exchange, while retaining a controlled route back to the contributor. Whether that arrangement helps people challenge more freely will depend on how it operates in practice.
The intention is to make contributions easier to examine on their merits while preserving accountability for their origin.
The record should explain, not merely accumulate
Provenance means knowing where a contribution came from and how it entered the inquiry. A useful record should also show what happened to it.
Was a concern investigated? Did new evidence change its significance? Did it alter the answer, remain unresolved or receive a reasoned rejection?
Transparency has practical boundaries. Sensitive material may need restricted access, and participants need to understand how their contributions will be used. Making reasoning inspectable does not require making every contribution public.
Nor does retaining more material automatically produce better understanding. The record needs to help someone follow the reasoning without forcing them to reconstruct the entire discussion.
What still needs proving
INQUIRIM has a developing structure and a set of design commitments. Its practical benefits require examination.
Can people use it without excessive facilitation? Does it preserve meaningful challenge when time is short? Can a later reader follow the reasoning accurately? Does the additional effort provide enough value compared with established approaches?
These questions should shape its development. A method for examining claims must be open to examination itself.
For me, the central ambition remains straightforward: an answer should carry enough of its reasoning with it that others can understand its strength, recognise its limits and challenge it intelligently.
If you were asked to rely on an INQUIRIM answer, what would you need to see in its record before you trusted it enough to act?
First published on LinkedIn on 22 October 2026.