Formal Consensus (FC): The extant article state. Ontologically privileged as the sole empirically verifiable, intersubjectively stable artifact at T=0. The ground truth for action.
Shadow Consensus (SC): The distributed, latent, N-dimensional vector space of editor beliefs, interpretations, policy understandings, and social trust regarding the topic/page. Inherently unmeasurable, potentially incoherent or contested. The target of alignment.
Consensus Hypothesis (CH): An individual editor's predictive model of the SC state and its desired relation to FC. The necessary precursor to any non-trivial edit. Accuracy of CH correlates with edit "stickiness."
BRD is the primary phenomenological pattern for probing and iteratively aligning FC with perceived SC states via CH testing. The cycle unfolds sequentially, potentially involving multiple actors:
B (Bold Edit / B₁): Enactment of Editor A's CH₁ via perturbation of FC. Functions as an epistemic probe launched from CH₁ into the system, testing SC alignment by challenging FC stability. Assumes CH₁ justifies deviation from current FC.
R (Revert / R₁): Explicit conflict signal. Editor B, operating from CH₂, perceives B₁ as misaligned with their SC assessment. The revert restores prior FC state (or an alternative), making the intersubjective CH conflict manifest at the FC level. Crucially, R₁ identifies Editor B as the immediate Most Interested Person (MIP) holding the conflicting CH₂. (Note: Procedural reverts ("get consensus") without CH₂ belief are noise/disruption, violating the mechanism's epistemic integrity.)
D (Discuss / D₁): Triggered by R₁. Mandatory shift from FC manipulation to explicit intersubjective negotiation between Editor A and the identified MIP (Editor B). Goal: Articulate CH₁ and CH₂, expose underlying rationale, and iteratively refine/co-construct a new, shared CH₃ capable of supporting a stable FC modification. The critical objective of D₁ is to formulate a revised edit proposal (B₂), preferably to be executed by the current MIP (Editor B), signifying successful local alignment.
Iteration and MIP Discovery: The cycle is inherently iterative. The proposed (and ideally MIP-executed) B₂ is itself a new hypothesis test (CH₃ enacted). If B₂ perturbs the SC alignment for another actor, Editor C (operating from CH₄), it may trigger R₂ (by C). This identifies Editor C as the new MIP, initiating D₂ between the proponents of B₂ (potentially A and B) and C. This continues until an edit B' achieves stability by not provoking further reverts from salient MIPs.
BRD is descriptive of emergent, effective conflict navigation behavior in wiki systems. It is not a prescriptive protocol. Rigid adherence misses the adaptive requirement.
Its power derives from leveraging the inherent properties of the wiki structure (editability, history, talk pages) as mapped to the FC/SC/CH model and the iterative MIP discovery process.
Mastery (Ri stage) involves intuitive application of the underlying principles, adapting the B-R-D sequence or tools based on real-time assessment of SC state and social context, not literal step-following.
Function: BRD systematically surfaces latent SC conflict by forcing hypotheses about SC into testable FC perturbations. It converts tacit disagreement into explicit, resolvable dispute, targeting engagement sequentially with contesting actors (MIPs). It drives iterative refinement of CHs and FC towards greater alignment with a (hopefully) stabilizing SC.
Risk ("Danger"): The mechanism inherently risks significant socio-emotional blowback, particularly during the R/D phases. Surfacing deep SC conflict is disruptive. The intensity often correlates with the depth/contentiousness of the unearthed SC misalignment. Operator must possess high socio-emotional regulation, diagnostic skill, and contextual awareness. Misapplication predictably yields negative outcomes.
Principle of Belief: Edits (B or R) must reflect genuine CH belief. Violating this injects noise and constitutes disruption.
IAR/DISRUPT Nexus: BRD operates at this interface. BOLD invokes IAR (potentially breaking norms/FC stability for improvement). Reverts must avoid DISRUPT (only reverting based on genuine belief). The entire cycle, used correctly, serves the DISRUPT mandate while leveraging IAR's flexibility.
Conclusion: BRD is not etiquette; it is a core, pattern-based mechanism for managing the epistemological challenge of distributed consensus. It functions through iterative cycles of hypothesis testing (B), conflict signaling/actor identification (R), and targeted negotiation (D) to progressively align the visible artifact (FC) with the invisible collective understanding (SC). Its effective use is critical but non-trivial, requiring both conceptual understanding and practical skill.