MDPE.13:3.4 - Create materially different alternatives
Do not compare the incumbent arrangement with a cosmetic rewrite. Change at least one load-bearing relation: who recognizes, who chooses, which evidence matters, how access is allocated, how alternatives remain available, or how feedback and contest work.
Common arrangement families, used as examples rather than a closed taxonomy, include:
| Arrangement family | Likely gain | Likely burden or failure |
|---|---|---|
| expert jury or curator | subtle discrimination and programme coherence | gatekeeping, narrow canon, conflicts of interest |
| participant or peer selection | situated knowledge and local legitimacy | popularity loops, coordination cost, incumbent-network advantage |
| performer or creator choice | autonomy and experimentation | weak receiver input and hidden affected-party costs |
| algorithm-mediated visibility | scale and responsive ordering | opaque criteria, metric gaming, feedback amplification, format narrowing |
| several independent views with retained alternatives | plural evidence and protection from one-selector failure | slower decisions, unresolved conflicts, greater explanation cost |
| rotating, random, or exploration allocations | access for unusual or not-yet-legible variants | lower immediate fit and possible arbitrary harm |
Use novelty–quality–diversity reasoning when one ranking would destroy useful alternatives or stepping stones. State which dimension of diversity matters and why.