The case studies below show protocol-governed inquiry in practice. Each began with a real question posed by an academic researcher. Each summary was generated as a standardised output from a Studio session and then reviewed by the researcher who initiated the question. To preserve confidentiality, the researchers are referred to here as Researcher A, Researcher B and Researcher C. The fourth case study from Researcher D, scenario development, also demonstrates the Studio methodology in more detail.
These examples illustrate what The Studio produces – how it marks the epistemic status of its claims, how it detects conceptual vacancy in terms that look settled, and how it preserves genuine disagreement rather than dissolving it into false consensus. They describe the behaviour of the instrument and its findings; they do not describe the underlying protocols, which remain proprietary. The point of each case is not the answer reached but the discipline with which the terrain was mapped.
What to look for as you read:
- Epistemic status markers – claims are explicitly distinguished as empirically grounded, inference-based, or hypothetical, rather than presented with uniform confidence.
- Conceptual vacancy detection – terms that appear agreed in public debate (“disrespectful”, “controversial”, “harm”) are tested and, where they carry no shared specification, flagged rather than glossed over.
- Refusal of premature synthesis – where traditions genuinely diverge, the analysis records the disagreement as a result in its own right instead of forcing a single verdict.
- Note – full Studio reports run to several pages with detailed analysis, open questions, nuance and quality assurances. These examples are deliberately simplified.
CASE 1 · PRACTICAL ETHICS · RESEARCHER A
Does predicting people via AI disrespect them?
“Is it problematically disrespectful to people if we use AI to make predictions about their beliefs and actions?”
CASE 2 · RESEARCH INQUIRY · RESEARCHER B
Are comedians a special moral category?
“Are comedians in a special category compared with other people when it comes to saying controversial things in public?”
CASE 3 · INSTITUTIONAL FUTURES · RESEARCHER C
What is education for?
“What is the ultimate ideal goal or purpose of formal education?”
CASE 4 · SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT · RESEARCHER D & METHODOLOGY
Who controls the machine?
“What impact does AI have on the future of work, on a five-year horizon?”