GRF · Research Nexus
Dialogues and cooperation
Institutional dialogues in research Nexus: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.
The workspace for dialogues and cooperation.
Exercise control
Question framing with policy · Example exercise interface, not a record
What the screen records
- Injects delivered
- count against the planned injects
- Median response
- minutes, per player cell
- Observer notes
- count, observers first
- Stand-down
- planned day and hot wash
Inject timeline
example sequence
- 09:00INJ-1Scenario opens: Question framing with policy
- 10:30INJ-2Policy liaison receives first signal
- 12:15INJ-3Escalation: second system affected
- 14:00INJ-4Media query and public message
- 16:30HOTHot wash, observers first
Player cells
| Panel chair | injects, response time, state |
| Policy liaison | injects, response time, state |
| Review editor | injects, response time, state |
| Research network coordinator | injects, response time, state |
Research Nexus · Exercise control. Exercise control: example names and illustrative values, not a record.
Dialogues are listed when confirmed.
Each dialogue appears here once confirmed, with its host, format and terms. To propose one, write to Contact.
Where researchers and decision holders disagree about what counts as knowing.
A research dialogue on Research Nexus asks a narrow question: what does the evidence on a shared risk support, and what would a decision holder need that research does not yet provide? Researchers bring confidence statements and their limits; public servants bring the decision and its deadline. The friction between those two clocks is the subject.
| Format | Use | Record |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence round-table | Researchers present competing readings of the same evidence to public servants | Summary of agreements, disagreements and open questions |
| Knowledge-gap workshop | Public servants list what they could not find; researchers say whether it is answerable | A prioritised list of research questions with proposed owners |
| Expert elicitation session | Structured judgement where data is thin, following protocols such as IDEA or the Sheffield method | Elicited ranges with the protocol and participant expertise stated |
How the process runs.
Process explorer · Process
Dialogues and cooperation: Exercise from design to lessons
11 steps·4 stages·2 gates
Process
Dialogues and cooperation: Exercise from design to lessons
An exercise needs objectives, qualified environments and independent evaluators; the Global Risks Forum (GRF) authorises controlled live operation, evidence is sealed and the review keeps dissent.
01 Design
- 01ObjectivesRecord · The Global Risks ForumIndependent evaluators assess each exercise against its stated objectives. Nothing simulated is reported as observed impact.
- 02Entry conditionsComponentThe week starts only with qualified environments, controllers, evaluators, a scenario plan and stop-work authority.
- 03Direction, control and evaluation kept apartComponent · The Global Risks ForumGRF holds direction and admission, and GCRI's technical office runs the simulation environment. Evaluators did not design the scenario.
02 Conduct
- 04G4 · Controlled live operation authorisedGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF authorises controlled live operation for Action Week.
- 05Action Week: controlled exercisesExercise · UniverseTen exercise tracks run with independent evaluators and observation. None carries live actuation, incident command or warning authority.
- 06Exercise injects, finance track exampleStep · The Global Risks AllianceFinance and insurance readiness injects include a crossed parametric trigger or a wider sovereign spread. No transaction occurs.
- 07Run, decision and observation recordsRecordAction Week leaves run records, decision records, observation records and exercise assessments.
03 Close
- 08Stand-downStep · the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI)New work stops and authorised jobs are checkpointed. Temporary access is revoked and temporary capacity is released.
- 09G5 · Evidence sealed and stand-down recordedGate · The Global Risks ForumThe evidence is sealed with its provenance and the stand-down is recorded. Unresolved exceptions are recorded with accountable owners.
04 Learn
- 10After-action reviewStep · UniverseUniverse reviews what worked, what failed and what was not tested, preserving dissent.
- 11Improvement items with ownersRecord · UniverseThe exercise exits with improvement items. Method and gap findings become change proposals, and corrective actions close in the next period.
Universe · The programme year · A national missionDesigned programme process, not a record of operation. No cycle has run and every programme is at service level R0. A gate is a programme decision, never a public-authority approval, certification or deployment authorisation. The one-day stand-down is still proposed.
From a dialogue to the research agenda.
Questions that emerge are passed to GCRI as research requests, or to universities through the research and universities council. The science-policy interface topic describes the institutions on each side.
Where this page's references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Are dialogues public?
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.