Untitled

SimScore Governance Tool: Change Management Analysis

Introduction

This analysis examines community feedback on the SimScore proposal using similarity scores that measure alignment with the community's centroid position. The SimScore methodology treats similarity percentages as weights, where responses with higher percentages (closer to community consensus) carry significantly more influence. A 50% similarity score represents twice the importance of a 25% score, allowing us to identify the most critical concerns and recommendations based on collective community sentiment.

Detailed Change Recommendations

1. Implement Mandatory Governance Framework Review Process

Problem Statement: The SimScore system would introduce a new procedural layer into the DAO's governance pipeline without proper authorization, potentially creating illegitimate governance processes that bypass established DAO ratification requirements.

The highest priority concern centers on the procedural legitimacy of introducing SimScore into the DAO's governance pipeline.

Supporting Data Points:

• Priority #1 (@GozmanGonzalez, 52%): "This system introduces an entirely new procedural layer into the DAO's proposal pipeline. Before deployment, the community should consider if this constitutes a material change in proposal process that might require a ratified governance framework, especially if used during critical governance phases like Temperature Check or on-chain vote refinement."
• Priority #36 (@GozmanGonzalez, 16%): "DAO ratification of workflow changes"

Why This Change Matters: This represents the strongest community consensus at 52% similarity. The concern addresses fundamental governance legitimacy - introducing AI-powered proposal modification tools without proper DAO ratification could undermine procedural integrity. The community clearly prioritizes establishing formal approval processes before deploying tools that alter existing governance workflows, particularly during critical phases like Temperature Checks and on-chain voting.

2. Establish Rigid Proposer Intent Protection Mechanisms

Problem Statement: The current proposal lacks formally codified guarantees that AI-generated suggestions won't compromise original proposer authorship rights or inadvertently alter the fundamental intent of governance proposals.

The community strongly emphasizes protecting original proposer authorship and maintaining proposal integrity throughout the AI-assisted revision process.

Supporting Data Points:

• Priority #2 (@GozmanGonzalez, 44%): "The idea of algorithmically suggesting edits to proposals based on community feedback is promising. However, it's essential that any revisions maintain the integrity of the proposer's original intent. While the proposal does ensure human final control, we must codify this guarantee as a non-negotiable principle to protect authorship rights and procedural fairness in governance."
• Priority #41 (@GozmanGonzalez, 11%): "Non-binding AI suggestions unless proposer-approved"

Why This Change Matters: At 44% similarity, this represents a core community value around preserving democratic principles in governance. The feedback demands moving beyond informal assurances to formal codification of proposer rights. This addresses fundamental concerns about AI overreach in governance and ensures that technological efficiency doesn't compromise the integrity of human-driven proposal development.

3. Mandate Comprehensive Pilot Testing Before Full Deployment