How it works, step by step
This page follows one example from start to finish: residents and a city trying three designs for a road that floods.
Three designs for the same road
Raising a road might get people to the hospital during a flood. It might also change how the water sits around the houses beside it. Both can be true at once, so residents and planners can try more than one design.
The road as it stands today, and how people reach the hospital now.
The city’s raised road, and what the water does around nearby homes.
A different design, judged by criteria the residents choose themselves.
An illustration. Any real comparison needs data and methods that suit the question.
- Ask a question. Name a place and a change you want to try. An assistant works out which data and which methods your question needs.
- Review the proposal. You see the place, the conditions, the assumptions, and what will be measured. Nothing runs until you approve it.
- Compare alternatives. Put today’s conditions next to each proposed design, on a map, in playback, and in numbers.
- Inspect the evidence. Every result keeps its inputs, its methods, its assumptions, and its limits, and you can open all of them.
- Revise and contribute. Change an assumption, add another design, bring evidence of your own, or argue for different criteria for judging the tradeoffs.
Two people can agree on the arithmetic and still disagree about which tradeoff is acceptable. Frames record what each person cares about, including the things that should not be turned into a number.
A comparison does not make two proposals equal
Putting two proposals side by side does not make the evidence behind them equal. Each one stands on its own data, methods, assumptions, and constraints, and you have to look at those separately. If nobody has the hydraulic or ground-condition data, a road simulation cannot tell you the design is safe or buildable. That takes more data and an expert who can read it.
Whathappensify is still a prototype. What follows shows you the shape of a recorded question. Nothing here is a live simulation, and it is not a prediction about any real city.
How this result was reached.
Inspect the sources, assumptions and limits behind a conclusion.
Hover overTap a box, a row or a reading for what it stands for in this example.
Option B reduces journey times in this simulation.
Conditional on the declared inputs.
Inspect the recorded evidence and limits.
The evidence behind this conclusion
| Data sources | Two input records |
| Model and scope | Recorded with each run |
| Meaning of measures | Journey time only |
| Support for conclusion | Conditional simulation result |
| Disagreement | Not assessed |
Every conclusion stays attached to the inputs, methods and evidence behind it.