Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-27
This provides useful background on a possible basis for collective deliberation without requiring agreement on opinions or decisions. The mechanism is relevant to citizen participation, but the evidence does not specify its use in governance or establish how shared information is determined.
Does this challenge the goal?
In-scope gap
The question asks how shared information might support deliberation despite continuing disagreement. That is within the definition’s open inquiry into resolving conflicts and does not contest the governance goal.
The supplied evidence describes a possible meaning of common ground, but does not establish how a governance process should identify shared or reliable information.
Why this category?
- Mechanism for deliberation
- Unresolved question about how shared information is identified
The answer records interpretations of one shared source, not independent evidence that common ground improves governance.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Read the exploration goalExplain how agreement on information can provide common ground without agreement on opinions or decisions.
What we can say so far
Yes. On the authors’ account, people can agree on shared information that informs later proposals or outcomes while retaining different opinions and without having settled on a decision. That informational agreement can therefore provide common ground for subsequent discussion or action; it need not amount to agreement on the opinions themselves or on a final decision.
What remains open
- No procedure is given for deciding what information counts as shared or reliable.
- The threshold for sufficient agreement is not defined.
Conditions and limits
- This is an account of the authors’ proposed meaning of common ground, not evidence that the approach produces a particular outcome.
- The source coverage is the readable 10-page article; supplementary materials are not included.
- The evidence does not specify how groups determine which information is shared or reliable, or how much agreement is enough to count as common ground.
Objections to consider
- The evidence does not explain how a group decides which information is shared or reliable. This limits the account’s procedural detail but does not negate the stated mechanism.
- The evidence does not specify the threshold for enough agreement to count as consensus or common ground. The mechanism is stated, but its boundary is not defined.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
qualifies
Shared information can be common ground The authors suggest that groups may find common ground by agreeing on shared information that can inform later proposals or decisions, even while different opinions remain.
Provides the central mechanism—shared information can inform later proposals or decisions even when opinions differ—and qualifies it by noting that the process for selecting reliable shared information is unspecified.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Read full source: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation →
qualifies
Different views may remain The authors note that different views may remain after deliberation, so consensus can be partial rather than a single settled position.
Confirms that views may remain different, while noting that the evidence does not define how much agreement constitutes consensus.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Read full source: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation →
supports
A working meaning of common ground The authors define common ground as agreement on shared information that can inform later proposals or outcomes. Their main hypothesis was that AI mediation would help groups find it.
States the working definition of common ground as agreement on shared information that can inform later proposals or outcomes; it is a definition and hypothesis, not a reported result.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Read full source ↗