The Future of Good Decisions (FGD) project contributes to ‘public AI’ initiatives by defending and reimagining the role of the administrative state in the next phase of AI development. The state is a primary historical locus for both the constitution of publics and the articulation of procedural values, but today, with the becoming-computational of social and political life, and the corporate capture of technical infrastructures, both require concerted reinvention.

Using LARP, FGD models innovation through new modes and sites of public deliberation, presenting decision system co-design and ownership as necessities for the evolution of democratic process. In this way, it responds also to the growing crisis arising from the reshaping of decision-making, decision agency and decision review in administrative government.

We use Live Action Role Play (LARP) as a participatory research method for prototyping the collaborative co-design of human-AI government decision systems. LARP takes centre stage responding to the well-known mismatch between algorithmic decision-making and established public values like the rule of law and the principles of public administration. This mismatch has resulted in several high-profile scandals, like the UK’s discriminatory visa streaming process.

While dominant approaches refine algorithmic systems to conform marginally better to existing procedural and legal frameworks, FGD turns to large-scale LARP in order to explore new public-participatory design processes, evaluation practices and value principles. The goal is to reimagine decision-making in public authorities for a new technosocial milieu, with plural public perspectives at its centre.

In government contexts, where institutional norms and risk-aversion can constrain creative thinking, LARP opens up space to prefigure new systems, surface unexpected values, and surface tensions that more conventional methods miss. The Future of Good Decisions is using LARP to experiment with participatory co-design of algorithmic systems — asking who gets a seat at the table, and what "good" decisions might actually mean in practice.

This is a Live Action Role Play (LARP), where people interact in-character, within set parameters and a game scenario, to achieve an in-game goal. There are no lines to recite, and no script to follow – only improvisation.

In the game, a fictional local government is running a participatory co-design process for an automated decision system. The system will grant use and access permits for an ecologically significant urban smart green space called ‘Methexis Park’.

The game will run from May to September 2026, online and in person. There are two online play periods, in June and July. There is one in-person play period, in September 2026.

Players will act as individuals, groups and institutions who are participating in the co-design process. They will consider the design brief, and depending on their character, role and time commitment, may choose to undertake a range of in-role activities across the play periods, including the below.

Basic game actions

Online

• Make brief, standard-form submissions about all aspects of substantive content (political, technical, legal, etc) and the process itself.

• Share directly relevant resources.

• Participate in discussions.

• Observe and report on the process.

• Make statements (‘design propositions’) about desirable and undesirable features of the fictional system, and vote to agree or disagree with others’ statements.

• Feed back on the process.

• Observe and report on the process.

In person

• Participate in group sessions refining issues raised during the online play phase, and settling the design approach to those issues.

• Participate in producing a wire frame of the fictional decision system.

Timeline for the overall process

1. Onboarding

Players are onboarded to the research, the game and the game platforms. After this step, all activities take place ‘in-game’, with participants acting in their roles.

2. Brief

Government releases design brief and participation protocols and calls for responses

3. Online play period 1 (June) - Discord

• Participants contribute their expertise and perspective, by making brief, standard-form contributions. They interact, and undertake other activities according to the participation protocols

• Technical consultants make comments on feasibility and design directions

• Observer-reporters write and publish brief blog posts describing the process commenting and raising issues

• Government group issues interim report

4. Online play period 2 (July) – Pol.is 2.0

• Government launches a Pol.is instance, seeded with starter ‘design propositions’ arising from the interim report

• All participants make and vote on design propositions

• Observer-reporters write brief blog posts describing the process commenting and raising issues

5. In-person summit

• Day 1: Issue mapping, specific issue working groups, summit dinner

• Day 2: Parallel small groups wireframe system designs, presentations and group evaluations, summit design synthesis

6. Government prepares final report

The game will not involve building a real decision system, only designing one. The main in-game output will be a wireframe or concept map for a fictional system.

The game is not trying to see how existing regulatory frames, real government decision-making processes, or decision process review mechanisms would handle this fictional scenario. In a nutshell, the game responds to system design as a new critical site of agency in administrative decision-making. Given this fact, design should also be a new site of deliberation and evaluation, and the careful elaboration of processes and process values.

The game tries to imagine a completely new kind of design process, taking a deliberately ‘utopian’, experimental approach to co-design—not necessarily a realistic one. As well as exploring this as a possibility for creating better decision systems, the LARP poses decision system design as a key frontier for deliberative governance. What if decision system design—widely recognised today as shaping decision processes and outcomes—was a site of deliberation, subject to democratic scrutiny and transparency goals? What would that change in the government administrative decision-making ecosystem? Who would participate? Who would review the design process, and using what criteria, guided by which value priorities?

The aim is to explore a highly inclusive participatory process, enabling collective ‘blue skies’ reflection on how current approaches to system design and evaluation might be democratically reimagined. It aims to equip the research team to think qualitatively about the parameters of the process, what system design might evolve towards, whether and how process review might function differently, and what technical, political and legal criteria might be useful for evaluating future administrative processes.

In the next phase of the Future of Good Decisions project, the insights from this process will be used to inform a more realistic participatory co-design experiment within administrative and regulatory parameters.

There are three main groups of players in the game - plus the government / organizers.

1. General process participant

Overview: Players enter the game as any entity responding to the brief. This group includes individual experts or researchers; a real or fictional group, agency or organisation who is either affected, has an interest, or has expertise about some aspect of the brief; a real or fictional government department; or a person who would be affected by the proposed system. They get involved in the process in whatever way is appropriate for their character’s expertise, concerns, and time availability.

Practicals: In the first play period, the main thing participants will do is make brief, standardised submissions outlining issues for consideration. These will consist of a title, a 50-word summary of content, and a max 300-word description of the issue they would like to raise. They can also undertake a range of other actions like ask for clarifications, raise concerns, share their own research or other key resources, and participate in general discussion and online forums convened during the process.

In the second play period, participants will join the ‘Pol.is’ platform, where they will post succinct ‘design propositions’ for consideration by the group based on the impressions they have formed during the process to that point. They will also vote on propositions made by other participants.

‘Design proposition’ is simply the term we are using for the statements made on the Pol.is platform, which will include anything that expresses a point of view on the system that might affect its features or operation. For example, a statement like ‘we need participatory data governance’ is a design proposition, as is ‘this system should be designed with the Equality Act 2010 and protected characteristics in mind’. They can also be negative – for example ‘We shouldn’t let the government use facial recognition technology here’. Propositions might also be about more concrete features, like ‘regular system evaluations should always involve a step where risks and harms are defined, through a participatory process, rather than established only once at the outset’ . They could even name more technical specifications, if necessary.

These examples aren’t meant to be limiting. Statements can be about anything the participants want to presence in the conversation! They also don’t need to be things that absolutely all participants can understand immediately. Although participants vote on these statements – agree or disagree – if they don’t have a view they can skip the statement and go to the next one. If they want to know more, they can check out the information, submissions and discussion from the first play period, or ask a question on Discord.

Final summit: You do not need to be able to attend the final summit in London in order to play this role. Numbers at the final summit will be limited, but we will try to represent a cross-section of the expertise and demographics of the general process participants.

Time commitment: This role will require a minimum of 4 hours during each of the two online play periods. Those participating in the in-person summit will dedicate a further two days, 21-22 September.

2. Technical consultants

Overview: If you have specific relevant technical expertise that will help to more concretely advance the system design, you can play as a technical consultant.  Instead of or in addition to the gameplay possibilities of general process participants, technical consultants will be asked to feed back to the government running the process, or express views on technical feasibility of key design preferences.

Practicals: The government will seek concrete feedback and comments at the conclusion of each of the two online play periods.

Final summit: Participants who have technical knowledge will be particularly valuable at the in-person summit. However, you do not need to be able to attend the final summit in London in order to play this role.

Time commitment: This role will require around 6 hours during each of the two online play periods. Those participating in the in-person summit will dedicate a further two days, 21-22 September.

3. Observer-reporters

Overview: if you’re more interested in critically observing the process overall, you could consider joining as an observer-reporter. These players have an important role: they observe the process and document it in brief blog posts. These will be hosted on an in-game platform that will also be visible outside the game. The posts will serve as a kind of digest or guide to players (and others), reflecting and representing the action. However, they could also have a critical role in characterising and evaluating the process, reporting the concerns and interests of other participants, identifying gaps or process concerns, setting out hopes and potential directions for the process, and so on.

Practicals: Observer posts will consist of a title, a 50-word description of content, and a body text of no more than 600 words. They can be made at any stage, but will be particularly welcome at the key inflection points of the process. Observer-reporters are asked to make a minimum of two blog posts during the game, one in each online play period. Those at the in-person summit will be asked to make a further post at that time.

Time commitment: This role will require around 6 hours during each of the two online play periods. Those participating in the in-person summit will dedicate a further two days, 21-22 September, where they will have a particular role in the discussions.

About the Government group

A small number of players will act as the government initiating and running the process. This role will be limited to members of the extended research team, since it will involve having access to the back-end of platforms and making strategic decisions about the direction of the gameplay.

The government group writes the initial design brief. It will monitor and manage the online platforms and respond to queries, requests and concerns. It might identify gaps in the discussion, ask for responses to specific documents, research, or general issues – or even bring more participants into the process. It will write an interim report at the end of the first online play phase, and seed the pol.is discussion. It will prepare a process summary and brief for the in-person design summit, which it will organise, host and manage. It will also produce a final process report.

The roles and overall gameplay

We have designed a process and set of interaction protocols that we hope will let people get involved with minimum fuss. The parameters are designed to get real-world expertise into the game, and organise it so it’s easy to find and engage with. But we don’t mean for interactions to be unduly limited. Players might find their own ways to interact with the game and each other. For example, as well as expressing views to the government group, a character might take observations or concerns to an observer-reporter.

Players who share a field of expertise, or who are keen to explore how their research would play out in the game scenario, might get together to hold an in-game discussion or make brief in-game presentations. Characters who share an interest in a particular design outcome might rally together to advocate. There will be all kinds of ways to inhabit your role and the process, and we invite you to explore them according to your interests and availability!

Yes, you can! This game models a participatory co-design process that is extremely inclusive. The scenario deliberately raises ecological, social and techno-political factors that our fictional government has broad discretion to address. The government also has a keen interest in pioneering a participatory process, as well as a stated desire to see how seriously we can take ecological and social priorities within the basic task of designing the system.

This means that the co-designers won’t only be people with technical or system design knowledge – they will be anyone who has a point of view, whether or not they might be classed as an ‘expert’ or ‘stakeholder’ in practice. The game will involve mediating all these points of view and translating them into a collective design. Similarly, there are no technical legal aspects you need to understand in order to join in. We have deliberately backgrounded these.

What the game foregrounds is system design as a site of decision-making agency, and of democratic deliberation requiring more kinds of input and oversight than it has today. The agency we are interested in here is not only the power to make concrete determinations that execute policy and legislation, but also the agency of algorithmic decision systems to shape everyday norms, practices, interactions, decision infrastructures, and political realities. The game asks players to help us to explore the range of issues and political values that might be relevant to government system design in the future.

Those who have concrete system design and government decision-making experience will find the game’s task more familiar. But nobody will truly be ‘in their comfort zone’, as gameplay and discussion is likely to move beyond current practice and its limitations.

There may never exist a real government process that is as inclusive and open-ended as the one we’re staging here. Although the Future of Good Decisions project is working towards realistic participatory system co-design, for this LARP specifically one of our main research goals is to draw out as broad a range of perspectives, concerns, values and ways of thinking about decision system design and evaluation as possible. So all are welcome!

Free yourself

In LARP, having a character is liberating. It frees you to do or say things slightly differently from how you normally would. It also insulates everyone from the risk of taking things said and done during the game too personally!

Play your expertise

The game is designed for participants to ‘play their own expertise’—but in a fictional setting that liberates players to resituate their existing knowledge to explore new possibilities, interactions, goals and ideals. You could play as a character who is quite close to your own identity, or you could imagine someone or something quite different.

What can you bring to the task?

Considering the game description, ask yourself what aspects of your experience and expertise might make an interesting contribution to the task of co-designing an ideal decision system. What we end up with might not be anyone’s ideal—but what is important is bringing things that you really care about to the task of imagining new approaches to system design and evaluation.

Take a look at the main roles for players—general process participant, technical consultant, or process observer-reporter. Does one of these jump out as the right vehicle to support how you’d like to play? You should consider the main activities of that role, as well as the time commitment.

Now consider a character with your expertise that might be part of the fictional scenario.

Play as a group

One possibility is to play in a group, as a group—an agency or organisation with different members. This might appeal to a research group or other organisation who would like to bring their collective work into the game setting. This might be a way of advancing the group’s real-world efforts, and it may even be a way to share the time commitment of the game. Or, you could play as an individual representing a group.

Play as a user, community voice, or observer-reporter

One way for participants with less specific legal, technical or system design research expertise to come into the game is as a user of the space. What might local residents, a community group, an ecological defender, a community health advocate, and so on, say about the government’s plans? What interests might they want to see represented in the process? Or if your interest is in the overall design or the design process itself, consider playing as an observer-reporter.

Use character-formation to explore alternative values

We strongly encourage participants to use the formation of their character—not just in-game activity—to explore potential futures.

Prefiguration: play the future you want to see

For example, if your research has led you to believe that an Algorithm Commission should be created, why not play as that Commission in this game – either on your own, or by putting together a small group? Or perhaps you would like to advance the interests of more-than-human decision making and play the representative for the Methexis Park lake, recently granted legal personhood. This is an example of ‘prefiguration’ – exploring potential futures by imagining: ‘what if that were real?’ Alternatively, if you know a lot about existing or currently proposed algorithmic regulations and think they could be interestingly represented in-game, perhaps you can think of an entity who would be well placed to do that.

Create the characters the future needs (even if it may never get them)

Characters don’t need to stick closely to things that might soon exist, either. If you think there are processes or values that are critically important in how we understand algorithmic technology, the nature of government, technosocial ecologies, relationship to environment, or anything else relevant to the scenario, then we invite you to think of ways to bring them into the game through a character. Perhaps there is a theorist whose work has a lot to contribute to the process. In this alternative reality, perhaps there is a foundation dedicated to advocating for their thought in public processes? Might there be a group dedicated to the representation of a specific aspect of the ecology? Or here’s a wild one: if you think our evaluation timescales are too short-sightes, why not introduce a Council of Elders (or Youngers?). Wilder still – what about one that has time-travelled back from the year 3026?

The possibilities are limited only by two factors

1. What you want to do, and think would be interesting. We encourage you to think creatively about how the issues and perspectives you care about most might come into the game.

2. Contribution to a coherent world. Once an aspect of reality has been established in Methexis Park by participant’s statements and proposals it cannot be revoked. Your character may disagree with the actions, opinions and values of another character, but they cannot contradict an established reality.

We are happy to offer some support to players in devising their character if they would like help with this process.

Background

In the game scenario, a local government wants to set up an automated system for granting access and use permits for a high-value urban ‘smart green space’ of ecological importance – Methexis Park. The park is common land, governed—like all council-owned parks and green spaces—by the Commons Act 2006. Access to common land can be restricted in certain circumstances under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

While the legal basis for the government’s plans is clear, there are a lot of competing social, technical, regulatory and ecological factors to juggle, and the government regularly receives pressure from their constituencies on all of these. So, they want to consult interested, knowledgeable and affected parties to help presence these issues in the design process.

However, the government is also aware that there have been several high-profile disasters around the world involving automated decision-making in government. These have revealed new challenges and priorities for how we understand administrative decision-making, automation, and legal frameworks. Particularly obvious today are the importance of decision system design, and the limitations of existing ‘judicial review’ mechanisms for contesting and evaluating individual decisions.

Further, the government is aware of leading approaches to participatory AI development, and more experimental system development processes like ‘sandboxing’. The result is that the government is trialling a participatory co-design method of decision system design.

Methexis Park

The Park is a recreational blue and green space, located in the heart of a large urban area in a fictional major city in the UK. The borough’s green management plan reports that are no other outdoor recreational facilities in the vicinity. The area has for the past several decades been categorised as predominantly low-income, but in recent years it has shown signs of gentrification.

The land on which Methexis Park sits is owned by the local government that is running the participatory co-design process. It has been approved for redevelopment during 2027-2029, supported by national funding to boost low-income areas and support the implementation of smart space infrastructures. Additionally, the borough is committed to leading the development on a nature-centric basis. It wants to respect the ecological significance of the space, working with it to enhance it as a living system with its own value and rights. While it will be integrated with human use needs, it should not be treated solely as vacant land awaiting development.

The decision system will need to balance the interests and rights of all stakeholders, communities and ecosystems, keeping in mind the plans for the area. These plans include the following features aimed primarily at human communities:

• The creation of a limited-access community sports and activities field

• Beautification of some grassed areas including the installation of barbecue shelters

• The cleanup of an artificially-widened lake, which had become polluted with litter in recent years, to a swimmable standard

• The installation of secure fencing around the park, creating a hard boundary with four gated points of access

• The installation of surveillance cameras covering the Park

• The installation of Automatic Facial Recognition technology

• The installation of water quality and water level monitoring sensors, and data gathering and processing infrastructure

Environmental impact reporting has determined that there are two endangered species that use the Park as a habitat: water voles, and red squirrels. These are both protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, and are priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Additionally, ecological groups have identified the presence of two species of small water crustaceans native to the region.  One of these, they say, is very rare and of crucial ecological significance, but it is not currently formally protected under law. Freshwater crustaceans control algae growth, are a vital food source for fish, birds and insects, and are ecologically significant as both nutrient recyclers and indicators of water quality.

What will the system need to be able to do?

The system will make two kinds of decisions related to the management and operation of the park, as empowered by existing policy and regulations. These regulations themselves are not the explicit subject of the game, and players should assume that the government is authorised to build a system of this kind, using any appropriate means, as long as it is otherwise lawful (ie, does not breach other existing laws, regulations and legal principles).

The decisions are:

1. Granting permits for sporting and community groups to use a multi-purpose sports field and recreational lake;

2. Granting general public access, which will involve monitoring numbers of users in the water and in the Park as a whole.

The Process

The government has designed a process that will run over several months, consisting of three main phases, with the aim of producing a wireframe for an automated decision system.

1. Online call for submissions, informing and issue mapping – in which any and all affected, interested and knowledgable parties can identify and provide information about any and all issues—be they technical, social, ecological, or other, raised by the scenario.

2. Online exchange of views and problem identification – in which process participants make, and vote on, design propositions.

3. In-person decision design summit – at which a smaller group of participants will draw on the proceedings so far to produce a wireframe map of the system.

1. Discord

https://discord.com

Discord is a major online gaming platform used by a wide variety of communities. We are using it to host and organise multi-channel text and video chats. It will be the main site for people to post their contributions in phase 1 of the game, and throughout the whole process for communications to and from the Government, and between players.

You can access Discord through a web browser, or through a dedicated app for your desktop and/or mobile device.

2. Pol.is 2.0

https://pol.is/home2

Pol.is is an open-source platform for online deliberation. It is designed to facilitate large groups to find consensus on complex topics. To our knowledge, Pol.is has not been used as a collective decision system design tool before. Our use of Pol.is 2.0 will be more oriented to identifying areas of both agreement and disagreement, ahead of the game’s in-person design summit.

While this version of Pol.is does include LLM-generated summaries particularly for very large groups, we are expecting our LARP to engage critically and reflectively with this function, for example by disabling it, critiquing its output, and maintaining human oversight for this relatively small-scale deliberation.

Pol.is will be accessed through your web browser, via desktop or mobile.

The in-person summit will take place at Whitechapel Gallery, London, UK, on 21-22 September 2026. There will be a maximum of 50 participants, due to space and budgetary constraints.

Diversity is crucial to the success of the summit as is the participation of people with a range of relevant disciplines, expertise, experience and backgrounds. We will be seeking to put together a diverse and balanced group with an interesting mix of knowledge, experience, and points of view. Depth of knowledge and the level and quality of contribution to the online stages of the LARP will also be important considerations in the selection of participants.

A small amount of budget is available to assist participants with specific access needs and those who would need to travel from outside London in order to participate in the summit. If that’s you, please make sure to indicate this on the expression of interest webform.

Participants in the Methexis Park LARP will have the opportunity to engage in a different kind of thinking about a crucially important issue currently facing democratic governments: how should we design and evaluate decision systems involving algorithmic automation? The LARP will enable you to draw upon your thinking on any aspect of this question, and resituate it within an immersive, embodied, collective, durational experiment. In the LARP, multiple points of view will come into contact – catalysing new thinking, and perhaps emergent new approaches to government decision system design.

Participants will also be making present their own research, expertise and insights, and influencing the direction of the project’s prefiguration of a deliberative participatory design process. Beyond producing a hypothetical system design, the project will model the design process itself. We hope that this will result in useful insights about the potential of participatory co-design for government decision systems, and the kinds of criteria that we might develop to assess them. Participants will be collectively steering this process and helping to make the game a worthwhile attempt to advance this agenda.

Finally, participants will meet and connect with a group of people who share their overall concerns and complementary expertise. The potential for generating new research connections, collaborations and agendas is one of the most exciting aspects of joining a research LARP!

The Methexis Park LARP is motivated partly by the rise in participatory approaches to algorithmic systems, and a belief in the importance of the democratisation of technologies. Government is sometimes an overlooked site for this mission, despite being particularly important. Government—in theory and in practice—has been a key historical site for the development of technologies, and an innovator of practical thinking about processes and values. Yet today government decision-making is not necessarily front of mind as a pioneer of ethical approaches to AI.

This LARP aims to provide a space for collective innovation on this issue, responding to a wide range of pressing problems for government as it embeds algorithmic tech—from human oversight to procurement to standards-setting. To name two of the most difficult: first, government decision system design is often largely discretionary, and not itself the subject of design policy or a central ‘best practice’ design resource or process. Given the way system design often strongly conditions decision outcomes beyond the exercise of individual human decision agency, what if governments took design more seriously as a site of democratic, shared deliberation? Second, algorithmic systems are notoriously difficult to review, both practically and because our government process review criteria were developed in a different media age. What if it was not only decisions themselves but system design and implementation that we evaluate? What criteria might our generation come up with, to assess the quality and lawfulness of system design?

With these broader goals and research questions of the Future of Good Decision project in mind, the game will result in a wireframe for a hypothetical decision system, which has the potential to map some desirable features of real sociotechnical decision systems. Beyond that, the game will model or ‘prefigure’ the participatory co-design process itself. We hope that the LARP can help to think through some aspects of what this might look like. As part of this, the research team is reflecting on what emerging criteria we might develop to talk about what makes for a good co-design process in government, and how it might be reviewed according to the broad aims of public law and the principles of open democracy. We aim to apply the insights of this experiment in a subsequent LARP for the Future of Good Decisions Project, modelling the participatory co-design of a real government decision system in a more realistic way.

At the conclusion of the LARP, a para-fictional in-game report will be produced, alongside a short documentary film.

During the game, observers will post in-game blog posts that will also be visible to non-participants, and linked on social media.

We envisage two academic outputs co-authored by the organisers will result directly from the LARP. The LARP and its outputs will be drawn upon in future academic work including a project monograph for the Future of Good Decisions.

During the game, you might reference your own relevant real-world research, and apply it as part of your contributions.

Additionally, if you are playing as an in-game observer-reporter, you will author two short blog posts that will, of course, be credited to you.

At the conclusion of the LARP, a para-fictional in-game report will be produced. All participants who would like to be named will appear in the report. You will be invited to select your preference on signup, but can change your mind at any time before the publication of the report. Similarly, a short film documenting the LARP will be produced, and participants will be credited unless they prefer not to be.

Where academic publications arising from the LARP draw on direct in-game contributions, those will be credited, unless the relevant participant would prefer not to be credited.

You are free to draw on your experience participating in the LARP in your own academic or other work. Please take care in representing the views of others, and remember that they require situation (as part of a fictional game) and potentially also crediting.

Finally, the organisers are open to developing publications co-authored with participants, arising from in-game activities.

The Methexis Park LARP is being produced by a core team consisting of Dr Connal Parsley (University of Kent), Ruth Catlow (Furtherfield), and Dr Conor Heaney (University of Kent), with support from a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship and a grant from the AHRC Impact Accelerator Account.

The process has been guided by a Research Direction Collective, consisting of Professor Mercedes Bunz (Kings College London), Dr Jake Goldenfein (University of Melbourne), Professor Ann Light (University of Sussex), Professor Gregor Noll (University of Gothenburg) and Dr Alexandra Sinclair (University of Sydney).

A short film documenting the LARP is in pre-production, directed by Ben Cook.

Invaluable administrative support is provided by Alastair Frazer and Anna Stopford. Web design is by Lucie Loy.

Make sure you fill in the Expression of Interest webform. Potential participants will be contacted with next steps during May 2026.

Absolutely! If you know someone who might be interested, just share the EOI webform with them.

Alternatively, you can put us in touch with them directly via email, at futureofgooddecisions@kent.ac.uk.

If the EOI deadline has passed, or even if gameplay has started, it will still be possible to onboard new participants. We will be inclined to do this if it facilitates the inclusion of helpful knowledge or perspectives, or responds to our equity diversity and inclusion goals. Thanks for helping us to bring the right expertise into the process!