s4h-ethics-impact-scan

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