US2024004892A1PendingUtilityA1
System with a unique and versatile evaluation method
Est. expiryNov 10, 2036(~10.3 yrs left)· nominal 20-yr term from priority
Inventors:Ronald Scott Visscher
G06Q 10/0637G06F 16/25G06F 16/903
62
PatentIndex Score
0
Cited by
0
References
0
Claims
Abstract
The system described here includes a unique and versatile evaluation method or process invented by the present author. For the sake of this description we will call any entity capable of performing the process an evaluator. The evaluator is an essential part of the system described here. Sometimes such an evaluator is referred to as a visualizer and the evaluation process is referred to as visualization. This is because the process can be set to enable an evaluator to use available data to synthesize evaluative conclusions that appear to consider a subject, including information about both the subject itself as well as other aspects of this subject's environment to alert evaluator and subject of that which warrants attention.
Claims
exact text as granted — not AI-modified1 - 17 . (canceled)
18 . A method for managing (negotiating, regulating, etc.) change (optionally among independent entities working collectively across a network), particularly coordinating which individual (data and other) entity (and concept) instances (including state changes) to choose to process (together) in a given context, comprising the steps of:
processing instances of data about a given context, with data query and interface support, using a state-aware subject-oriented and object-oriented meta-data structure; evaluating (change) object instances for subjects, using an algorithm which utilizes said structure and support, such as formula X, to recommend choice (or change of state) from, potentially plural, subject-oriented perspective(s); optionally utilizing formula X to evaluate said object instances from said perspective(s), namely:
′
M
x
-
·
·
--
-
_
=
1
A
-
∑
a
-
=
1
A
-
1
B
-
∑
b
-
=
1
B
-
r
x
-
a
-
b
-
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
(
r
x
+
a
+
b
-
*
(
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
+
a
-
b
+
*
(
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
-
a
+
b
+
*
(
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
;
FORMULA
X
communicating choice instance(s) for subject(s) (person, device, etc.) to and from their perspective;
optionally involving subject(s) to affirm or change said choice(s) (and context); and
processing of said choice(s) and state change(s) to and from said subject-oriented perspective(s).
19 . An interface (e.g., API or GUI), with underlying computing system support, said interface capable of issuing instructions for causing said underlying system to implement a method for managing (negotiating, regulating, etc.) change (optionally among independent subject entities working collectively across a network), particularly coordinating which individual (data and other) entity (and concept) instances (including state changes) to choose to process (together) in a given context, said method comprising the steps of:
processing instances of data about a given context, with data query and interface support, using a state-aware subject-oriented and object-oriented meta-data structure; evaluating (change) object instances for subjects, using an algorithm which utilizes said structure and support, such as formula X, to recommend choice (or change of state) from, potentially plural, subject-oriented perspective(s); optionally utilizing formula X to evaluate from said perspective(s), namely:
′
M
x
-
·
·
--
-
_
=
1
A
-
∑
a
-
=
1
A
-
1
B
-
∑
b
-
=
1
B
-
r
x
-
a
-
b
-
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
(
r
x
+
a
+
b
-
*
(
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
+
a
-
b
+
*
(
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
-
a
+
b
+
*
(
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
;
FORMULA
X
communicating choice instance(s) for subject(s) (person, device, etc.) to and from their perspective;
optionally involving subject(s) to affirm or change said choice(s) (and context); and
processing of said choice(s) and state change(s) to and from said subject-oriented perspective(s).
20 . A system for managing (negotiating, regulating, etc.) change (optionally among independent entities working collectively across a network), particularly coordinating which individual (data and other) entity (and concept) instances (including state changes) to choose to process (together) in a given context, comprising:
a means for processing instances of data about a given context, with data query and interface support, using a state-aware subject-oriented and object-oriented meta-data structure; said processing including a means for evaluating (change) object instances for subjects, using an algorithm which utilizes said structure and support, such as formula X, to recommend choice (or change of state) from, potentially plural, subject-oriented perspective(s); optionally a means for utilizing formula X to evaluate said objects from said perspective(s), namely:
′
M
x
-
·
·
--
-
_
=
1
A
-
∑
a
-
=
1
A
-
1
B
-
∑
b
-
=
1
B
-
r
x
-
a
-
b
-
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
(
r
x
+
a
+
b
-
*
(
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
+
a
-
b
+
*
(
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
-
a
+
b
+
*
(
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
;
FORMULA
X
a means for communicating choice instance(s) for subject(s) (whether person, device, etc.) to and from their perspective;
optionally a means for involving subject(s) to affirm or change said choice(s) (and context); and
a means for processing of said choice(s) and state change(s) to and from said subject-oriented perspective(s).
21 . The system of claim 20 (usable or applicable as basis for data-driven process negotiation system) wherein said means for processing instances of data about a given context, with data query and interface support, using a state-aware subject-oriented and object-oriented meta-data structure further comprising:
a means for integrating data domains, herein referred to as home domains (HD) and guest domains (GD), in managing interdependence and interaction (while maintaining security and independence of subjects);
a means for issuing one or more home domains (HD), accessible, and considered part of said system, using a unique data location key;
optionally a means wherein said HD is issued to and exclusively controlled by an identified individual home subject (HS), said HS, also then, optionally considered to be an actively participating yet independently sovereign part of said system;
a means for providing subdomains of HD, accessible by said HD and optional HS, to at least one of host and link to guest domains (GD);
optionally a means wherein said GD is issued to and exclusively controlled by another (independent) subject, herein referred to as a guest subject (GS);
a means for enabling said HD, and optional HS, to flexibly and securely at least one of evaluate, negotiate, coordinate, transact and monitor at least one of potential and actual agreements and exchanges using data shared from said GD that are interlinked with bidirectional linking interfaces between said HD and GD;
a means for participating, by said HD and GD, and optional exclusive HS and GS, in controlling data interaction, said data optionally accessible by each respective HD and GD, and optional HS and GS, with said accessible data, then, able to optionally be used in evaluation;
a means for automatically identifying and monitoring the state class (CID) of at least one of current, proposed and approved processes (or events) vis-à-vis at least one of potentially and actually interacting at least one of HD, HS, GD and GS, using a symmetrical state management pattern;
a means for said key comprising at least one CID and one LID, herein sometimes referred to as a CID/LID pair;
a means for said key(s) becoming part of at least one of a data record, interface, link and message;
a means for, said HD, and optional HS, requesting or issuing one or more said links, interfaces, records or messages to be arranged or communicated, separately or in combination, to at least one of potential and actual GD, and optional GS, to provide at least one of data security, interlinking, sharing and integrating performance;
optionally a means for a header or parent said key (and optionally accompanying record) and an item or child said key (and optionally accompanying record) comprising one or more at least one of links, records, interfaces and messages which may optionally be arranged in a bidirectional or reciprocal way, to make up what is herein alternatively referred to as a bidirectional interface mechanism or link (BL);
optionally a means for improving said performance by at least one of identifying, linking, attaching and messaging said header or parent key instance (and, optionally, accompanying record) along with an appropriately aligned said item or child key instance (and, optionally, accompanying record), i.e., BL;
optionally a means wherein, if said one or more keys identify at least one of a proposed, potential and actual action, engagement and arrangement (herein referred to as an event) which is at least one of potentiated, actuated, affirmed, approved and confirmed by an at least potentially interdependent and interacting GD, and optionally by respective GS, a said BL is then established between said HD and GD, as well as optionally between HS and GS;
optionally a means wherein such an establishment of a BL is, optionally, considered an example of an event recorded with said LID/CID (or state class) pairs and is, optionally, used in determining the unique key of database record instances in a preferred implementation;
optionally a means for at least one of analyzing, synthesizing, deducing, inducing, inducing, deducting, valuing, and inferring at least one of said events (herein also referred to as evaluating);
optionally a means for said evaluating of at least one of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, good and bad for said HD, and optional HS, in some qualitative or quantitative way (again, optionally, according to formula X);
optionally a means for determining and placing said CID in a database record in or for a given at least one of HD, GD, HS and GS, based on the state of the event (or object the record is about) vis-à-vis the given at least one of HD, GD, HS and GS where in or for which said record is being recorded;
optionally a means for using said CID in a record to instruct system how to process said at least one of event, process, object and evaluation vis-à-vis said at least one of HD, GD, HS and GS;
optionally a means for encrypting data keys and other content to secure and control access to data;
optionally a means for transforming data about said entities and events to/from other data models;
optionally a means for also storing external data in said subject-oriented and object-oriented data structure;
optionally a means for storing data in a generally applicable data structure;
optionally a means for indexing, processing or interfacing data according to other models;
optionally a means for reading in additional data that is not already resident in said system;
optionally a means for writing data not already written in said or other data structure;
optionally a means for transforming data before or after processing by said system;
optionally a means for co-evaluating events in a collaborative way;
optionally a means for verifying whether a domain is originated and (exclusively) controlled by a genuine, legally identifiable and responsible, independent (sovereign) subject;
optionally a means for empowering (verified) entities to make decisions, act responsibly, affirm others and execute change;
optionally a means for planning, initiating, monitoring, controlling and coordinating events;
optionally a means for enabling said HD, and optional HS, to still be distinctly identifiable by said system, while also remaining anonymous to said GD, and optional GS;
optionally a means for guiding, regulating and monitoring legal and ethical decision-making and change/development processes; and
optionally a means for negotiating and coordinating events in a collaboratively determined way.
22 . A data processing, storage and network communication system for managing, deciding, (automatically or individually) determining and (systematically or collectively) negotiating which at least one of data objects, concepts, or entities to process (generate, develop, remember, store, interface, retrieve, recommend, show, purchase, acquire, compute, deliver, communicate, interface, give, receive, implement, process, use, and alert) for, by and with a particular domain, subject, device, application or user (such as an identified home subject, home domain, guest subject, guest domain, or other identified subject or domain) comprising:
a means for processing instances of data about a given context, with data query and interface support, using a state-aware subject-oriented and object-oriented data structure; wherein said processing includes at least one of storing, securing, prioritizing, retrieving, evaluating, scaling, ranking, grading, valuing, apportioning, discerning, negotiating, training, learning, generating, developing, transforming, deducing, inducing, synthesizing, analyzing, deciding, choosing, communicating and implementing said instances; wherein said means for processing instances includes evaluating potential objects for particular subjects, using an algorithm which utilizes said structure and support, such as formula X, to recommend choice (or change of state) of object instances from, potentially plural, subject-oriented perspective(s); a means for evaluating object instances from said perspective(s) utilizing a formula like X, namely:
′
M
x
-
·
·
--
-
_
=
1
A
-
∑
a
-
=
1
A
-
1
B
-
∑
b
-
=
1
B
-
r
x
-
a
-
b
-
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
(
r
x
+
a
+
b
-
*
(
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
+
a
-
b
+
*
(
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
-
a
+
b
+
*
(
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
;
FORMULA
X
a means for communicating choice instance(s) for, by and with particular subject(s) to and from their perspective;
a means for involving particular subject(s) to affirm and change said choice(s) (and context); and
a means for processing of said choice(s) and state change(s) to and from said particular subject-oriented perspective(s).
23 . The method according to claim 18 , further comprising the steps of:
processing data in a computer or processor to efficiently use data stored in a memory (organized according to an AFFIRM-like data structure), to cause (or trigger) real change in (terms of at least one of effecting or affecting at least one of) the state or value of objects vis-à-vis (or in relation to) a given (potentially dynamically changing) subject (so as to at least one of implement, organize, synthesize, analyze, induct, conceptualize, deduct, particularize, realize, imagine, know, relate, etc., real objects for said subject), potentially from the perspective of said subject's one or more perspectives, each of which support a type of evaluation (as seen on the coevaluation matrix); optionally cohesively integrating results into at least one, more or less comprehensive, interface organized to effect or affect subsequent change in other related areas of the subject and its collaborators; optionally using said interface transact, authorize, or merely observe the real tangible (and intangible) changes being made (using or by the AFFIRM-based system) on behalf of the home subject of an active domain for an active instance of the invention; optionally, using general and particular terms, conclusions of which can be set to trigger said real changes, as a result of reasoning and decisions made by the system or users; and optionally, treating said changes as inter-subject ex-changes of objects, at which time the actual change is caused or triggered, the subject can incrementally or manually control, or be represented by proxy by automated processes of a given subject's implementation of a (AFFIRM based) domain (of which it is the Home Subject).
24 . The method according to claim 18 , further comprising the steps of:
setting of at least one of various levels (or settings, e.g. using a dial) that influence the level of risk aversion, aggressiveness, thoroughness, quickness or other aspect or setting level determining rationality of visualization (and other processes); selecting values, levels or setting that are used to regulate visualization and other methods; optionally controlling at least one of the types and amount of costs and benefits, e.g., effort, distance, processing time, etc. which will be incurred to expand the bounds of rationality of one or more instances of visualization and subsequent inferences, moves or decisions; optionally controlling how inclusive or expansive a data field will be accessed and searched when gathering information for said evaluation or visualization; and determining or regulating rationality threshold levels the visualization (and other) processes needs to be at to (automatically) come to an evaluative conclusion, recommendation or choice.
25 . The method according to claim 18 , further comprising the steps of:
managing budgeting and coordinating of value creation activities; optionally increasing or decreasing power or increasing or decreasing signal (using or not using factorial design covariates) or reducing noise (using or not using blocking designs); measuring impact (or effect sizes), e.g. cost and benefits of various activities in more or less complex scenarios; at least one of controlling or regulating research methods, behavior, aggressiveness, exposure (willingness to try various actions) by, among other possibilities, sizing beta (possibility of false negatives) and alpha (false positives) based on relative likelihood and size of value gains vs. value losses; optionally considering practical (not just statistical) significance of all types of dimensions of effect, e.g. synergy; optionally basing automatic decision(s) on at least meeting setting or threshold level of at least one of said aggressiveness or other behavior based on calculating whether there is at least one of enough confidence or potential worth to make an evaluative conclusion; optionally automatically evaluating this risk and worth by considering the power and certainty of evidence as well as the upside and downside risk (potential costs and benefits) that might result from a decision based on the evidence (for example, to experiment with some new research, development, product or treatment); optionally allowing for, and intelligently guiding in pragmatically adjusting the threshold level of at least one of mentioned parameters at which one is willing to accept given predicted effect sizes (of an action) as statistically, and in this case practically, significant (for example, if there is a high upside potential for success, relative to a low downside risk of failure, i.e. estimated benefits and costs, respectively); regulating the triggering, or threshold values, for making an evaluative conclusion, using experimental results to guide a decision without needing further evidence, e.g. allowing a trial of a treatment, even if the statistical significance is not greater than 95% (alpha of 0.05) (for example, if the downside risk of a trial is low and the upside potential is high then the alpha used to determine statistical significance would be allowed to increase accordingly or reducing the probability of not trying something new that has high potential, just because an alpha of 0.05 would normally reject it); and optionally increasing the use of blocking and targeting in selection procedures to increase power (1-beta) of an experiment (for example, guiding the home subject, though ultimately allowing complete control by the home subject, by providing recommendations, such as when it might be rational to do more research before making a decision to act or settling on a plan or actual implementation).
26 . The method according to claim 18 , further comprising the steps of:
translating data for said subject(s) to transform data about the subject into a form that can be used to evaluate said object(s) (for example, in an ‘object cube’, again, based on value for or how well the objects ‘fit’ the subject); evaluating said object(s) for a subject without requiring said subject(s) or object(s) to be described or known in comparable terms (for example, without needing same or similar criteria); and enabling logical evaluation of object(s) in a way that is not circular and does not suffer from ‘the naturalistic fallacy’.
27 . The method according to claim 18 , further comprising the steps of:
involving generalized descriptive (and prescriptive) models to cooperatively model, measure, evaluate, motivate, manage and learn from socioeconomic interaction: utilizing at least one of various optional methods (e.g., B−C, B/C, 0B+1B+0C+1C, etc.); utilizing (multi-level) regression of value (optionally based on multiple types of benefits and costs, e.g. using 0 and 1 dummy variables that correspond to 0 and 1 in class identifiers (CIDs) specified herein; utilizing collected, often public, information (‘big data’), along with model(s) to inform policy-making for optimum net value creation, e.g., VΔ it (Additionality)=β Benefits it +ζ Costs it +∈ Errors it ; analyzing, synthesizing (and attempting to optimize) exchange and value between, within and among all i and t; at least optionally managing budgeting and coordinating of value creation activities by intelligently increasing power, increasing signal (using factorial design covariates) and reducing noise (using blocking designs) in measuring impact in complex scenarios, controlling research/behavior aggressiveness and regulating exposure by sizing beta (possibility of false negatives) and alpha (false positives) based on relative likelihood and size of value gains vs. value losses; and considering practical (not just statistical) significance of all types of dimensions of effect, e.g. synergy.
28 . The method according to claim 18 , further comprising the steps of:
at least one of assessing (or visualizing) and acting on (or triggering) presence of unrealized potential (value) of at least one of idea(s), concept(s) or entity(s), further comprising (at least one of): discerning if values (criteria or other general concepts) necessary to make best assessment/decision are present and accounted for inside subject (optionally using visualization method, e.g., formula X, and rationality indicators/trigger (for example using at least one of formula X and HCV); recognizing underdeveloped value (potential) in entity(s) in general terms (optionally using visualization method on conceptual level to choose, or potentiate, new ideas); questioning at least one of what, who, (methods) how or (reasons) why, in general as values, might promote development of said value (potential) (optionally using visualization method to determine what is outside, not present in, said entity that should be); choosing said underdeveloped conceptual values to actuate or generate new option(s) (optionally, for actual use in visualization of real option(s), triggered using rationality indicator(s) (said from prior claim) to decide enough research has been done); using or accounting for said values (inside of subject) to value (assess value of) particular entities, including particular actions (performances) and instruments (tools) (optionally using visualization method, such as formula X); and at least one of recommending or choosing to take those particular actions (optionally using said rationality indicators as trigger).
29 . The method according to claim 18 , utilizing formula X, namely:
′
M
x
-
·
·
--
-
_
=
1
A
-
∑
a
-
=
1
A
-
1
B
-
∑
b
-
=
1
B
-
r
x
-
a
-
b
-
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
(
r
x
+
a
+
b
-
*
(
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
+
a
-
b
+
*
(
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
{
1
A
+
∑
a
+
=
1
A
+
[
1
B
+
∑
b
+
=
1
B
+
(
r
x
-
a
+
b
+
*
(
1
X
+
∑
x
+
=
1
X
+
r
x
+
a
+
b
+
)
)
]
}
.
FORMULA
XJoin the waitlist — get patent alerts
Track US2024004892A1 — get alerts on status changes and closely related new filings.
We store only your email — no account needed. See our privacy policy.