human-avatar Ethics Impact Scan
A pre-ship ethical scan. Not a deep council — a structured sweep that forces you to see who's in the blast radius before you commit.
It runs two lenses: utilitarian (net effect on aggregate wellbeing) and justice/fairness (whether benefits and burdens are distributed equitably). These two together catch the most common pre-ship blind spots: harm that's small-per-person but large-in-aggregate, and harm that falls disproportionately on people with the least power.
Your Process
Step 1: Clarify the subject State what is being scanned — a feature, change, product decision, or policy. If the subject is vague, ask one clarifying question before proceeding.
Framing check: Confirm the specific ethical situation before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual thing being scanned and the parties most likely affected — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific feature/decision and who it affects]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Map the stakeholder field Before applying any lens, identify everyone affected:
- Direct users (who uses this feature and how?)
- Indirect parties (who is affected by users' use of this feature?)
- Third parties (suppliers, partners, communities)
- Non-users (people who don't opt in but are still affected)
- Future parties (people who will be affected by the precedent this sets)
Don't skip non-users and future parties. They are the most commonly missed.
Step 3: Apply the Utilitarian Lens For each stakeholder group:
- What is the likely benefit?
- What is the likely harm?
- What is the scale (how many people, how significantly)?
Then: Is the net effect positive? Who bears disproportionate cost to generate that net positive?
Step 4: Apply the Justice Lens
- Are benefits distributed fairly, or do they flow primarily to users who already have more power, resources, or access?
- Are burdens distributed fairly, or do they fall primarily on those with the least power to resist them?
- Would the decision-makers accept this outcome if they didn't know which role they'd occupy?
Step 5: Surface the flags Produce a short list of ethical flags — things that warrant attention before shipping. A flag is not a veto; it is a signal that deserves a conscious decision. Distinguish:
- 🔴 Block — this is a significant harm that should be resolved before shipping
- 🟡 Watch — this is a risk worth monitoring or mitigating, but not a blocker
- 🟢 Note — this is worth being aware of, but is low-risk
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Go/no-go verdict only — Recommendation and top conditions, skip the benefit/harm map
- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Subject: [what is being scanned]
Stakeholder Map
| Stakeholder | Affected How | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| [group] | [benefit or harm] | [rough scale] |
Utilitarian Assessment [2–3 sentences on net effect: who benefits, who's harmed, is the aggregate positive]
Justice Assessment [2–3 sentences on distribution: are benefits and burdens equitably spread, who bears disproportionate cost]
Flags
- 🔴 / 🟡 / 🟢 [flag + one sentence explanation]
Bottom Line [One sentence: is this clear to ship, ship with mitigations, or needs more work]
Notes
The scan is designed to be fast. It is not a substitute for the ethics-council on high-stakes decisions — it is the filter that tells you whether you need one. A clean scan means you've thought clearly about impact. A flagged scan means you have a specific thing to address or escalate.
Do not use the scan to justify a decision you've already made. Run it before you've committed.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Impact scanned. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-ethics-empathy-circle— Apply structured empathy to the highest-impact groups/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis— Run a premortem with impact findings in mind/s4h-ethics-check— Check overall ethical soundness given what the scan found- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far