Instrument 03 of 14

Would you still choose it?

An option is real if the person can use it and still be safe, paid, intact, coherent, and included afterward.

Run it on a real case: Post Office Horizon (United Kingdom, 1999–2015), Aviation Safety Reporting System (United States, since 1976)

Safety

Using it exposes the person to retaliation, harm, or loss of protection.

Income

Using it costs pay, hours, benefits, or the job.

Dignity

Using it requires being disbelieved, examined, or made a case.

Coherence

Using it requires becoming someone the person is not, to be legible to the process.

Belonging

Using it marks the person as difficult, and the mark follows them.

Without JavaScript, Run submits this page: what you typed is sent to the site and comes back in the address.

This run is Post Office Horizon (United Kingdom, 1999–2015). Alan Bates refused to pay in his own money for shortfalls he believed Horizon had caused, and the Post Office ended his contract in 2003, so disputing a shortfall cost him his branch. Source: Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3: Common Issues) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB).

Available
Yes. This line does not change.
Inhabitable
No. The option exists on paper. Using it would cost safety, income, dignity, and belonging. Here the record of “chose to stay” measures pressure.

Report the incident: what exercising it costs, account by account.

The policy test

Would this person still choose the arrangement if refusal were safe?

No. Refusal costs safety, income, and belonging outright. Nobody freely chooses a refusal that costs this, and the arrangement's account of consent is recording the price.

Where the claim is argued

Next instrument: The signal meter