escalation-triage

Conflict severity assessment evaluates disputes across six dimensions: severity, scope, parties, root cause, urgency, and safety. This structured framework prevents over-escalation or under-escalation by routing situations to appropriate resolution tiers, preserving community capacity and trust.

Route an interpersonal dispute to a harm circle when the structured assessment identifies significant scope or safety risks requiring group intervention. Direct dialogue handles lower-severity conflicts, while harm circles address situations needing broader community involvement and structured reconciliation.

Triage recurring behavioral patterns by assessing the root cause across the six-dimension framework. For meeting domination, this approach identifies the issue as a skill gap and routes the situation to coaching intervention, ensuring the individual receives targeted support.

Yes, tiered routing applies to interpersonal disputes, cross-circle tensions, behavioral patterns, and agreement breaches within an ecosystem. It directs conflicts to appropriate resolution tiers including direct dialogue, coaching intervention, harm circles, or community-wide assessments.

Document routing decisions by applying the structured six-dimension assessment framework to evaluate conflict severity, scope, parties, root cause, urgency, and safety. This documentation ensures transparent governance and tracks the rationale behind assigning specific resolution tiers.

Evaluating safety and urgency ensures harm reduction by preventing under-escalation of dangerous situations. These dimensions determine whether immediate intervention or community-wide assessment is required, prioritizing member safety over standard direct dialogue or coaching routes.