Update curriculum source files to current versions

content/curriculum/PS Guides/4-decision-making-in-practice.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majo
 
 ### :eyes: **Your role during session**
 
-- Observe the facilitation rotation activity — note how your studio members handle facilitating, participating, and observing
+- Observe the facilitation rotation activity – note how your studio members handle facilitating, participating, and observing
 - Listen for how they talk about where decisions currently happen (meetings? DMs? default to one person?)
 - Note whether anyone identifies informal hierarchy patterns during the journaling activity
 
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majo
 
 - Make sure your studio understands the Informal Hierarchy Check-In questions and plans to work through them together
 - Confirm they've chosen which decision-making framework to practice this week
-- Check that they understand the difference between consensus and consent — this trips people up
+- Check that they understand the difference between consensus and consent – this trips people up
 
 
 ## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Decision-Making Practice + Informal Hierarchy Check-In**
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majo
 
 #### **Check-in (5 min)**
 
-"What did you notice in the facilitation rotation? What was harder than expected — facilitating, participating, or observing?"
+"What did you notice in the facilitation rotation? What was harder than expected – facilitating, participating, or observing?"
 
 #### **Practice a decision-making framework (20-25 min)**
 
@@ -54,19 +54,19 @@ Help the studio work through a real decision using their chosen framework.
 **Set up (3 min):**
 
 - Name the decision clearly. Write it down where everyone can see it.
-- Name the framework you're using — "We're going to try consent on this."
+- Name the framework you're using – "We're going to try consent on this."
 - Clarify: who is affected by this decision? Does everyone here need to be part of it?
 
 **Work through the decision-making steps (15-20 min):**
 
-1. Understand the context — what's happening? What do people feel about it?
-2. Identify the underlying need — what are we actually trying to address?
-3. Generate options — encourage weird ideas. Notice who contributes.
-4. Check alignment with values — how do these options fit with who you want to be?
-5. Evaluate consequences — who benefits, who's affected, trade-offs?
-6. Decide using the framework — name the method before you begin.
+1. Understand the context – what's happening? What do people feel about it?
+2. Identify the underlying need – what are we actually trying to address?
+3. Generate options – encourage weird ideas. Notice who contributes.
+4. Check alignment with values – how do these options fit with who you want to be?
+5. Evaluate consequences – who benefits, who's affected, trade-offs?
+6. Decide using the framework – name the method before you begin.
 7. Before finalizing: "Does anyone have concerns they haven't voiced? Is anyone agreeing just to move on?"
-8. Clarify implementation — who does what? When do you check back?
+8. Clarify implementation – who does what? When do you check back?
 
 **Debrief (5 min):**
 
@@ -87,11 +87,11 @@ Work through the five questions together. Go one at a time.
 
 Prompts to keep it exploratory, not accusatory:
 
-- "No guilt here — we're just noticing."
+- "No guilt here – we're just noticing."
 - "These patterns aren't problems yet. But under pressure, they become cracks."
 - "What would you want to change? What's actually fine?"
 
-Capture observations — they'll bring these to Session 5.
+Capture observations – they'll bring these to Session 5.
 
 
 #### **Close (5 min)**
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Capture observations — they'll bring these to Session 5.
 
 #### **Map your current role distribution**
 
-This can be done async or as part of the PS meeting if there's time. The question is simple: for each role/responsibility in the studio, where did it come from — explicit decision or implicit default?
+This can be done async or as part of the PS meeting if there's time. The question is simple: for each role/responsibility in the studio, where did it come from – explicit decision or implicit default?
 
 Prompts:
 
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ This feeds directly into Session 5's governance work.
 
 If the decision-making practice feels artificial:
 
-- "The point isn't the outcome — it's noticing the process. How you decide matters as much as what you decide."
+- "The point is to *notice* the process. How you decide matters as much as what you decide."
 
 If one person dominates the decision:
 
@@ -129,26 +129,22 @@ If no one disagrees:
 
 - "That was quick! Is everyone actually aligned, or is someone going along to keep things moving?" (This is a direct reference to the dissent section from the session.)
 
-If the hierarchy check-in gets tense:
-
-- "This isn't about blame. The same name coming up a lot is information, not an indictment."
-
 If someone gets defensive:
 
-- "It's okay — noticing patterns is the hardest part. You don't need to fix anything today."
+- "It's okay – noticing patterns is the hardest part. You don't need to fix anything today."
 
 
 ### **🏁 After the session**
 
-- Note which patterns came up in the Informal Hierarchy Check-In — especially anything the studio seemed to avoid discussing
-- Note how the decision-making practice went — did they actually use the framework or fall back into old patterns?
+- Note which patterns came up in the Informal Hierarchy Check-In – especially anything the studio seemed to avoid discussing
+- Note how the decision-making practice went – did they actually use the framework or fall back into old patterns?
 - Bring observations to your PS check-in
 
 
 ## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
 
 - A studio that "decides" everything by default to one person and calls it delegation
-- Someone consistently going along without engaging — "I'm fine with whatever"
-- Resistance to the hierarchy check-in — "we don't have hierarchy, we're all equal" (everyone has patterns)
+- Someone consistently going along without engaging – "I'm fine with whatever"
+- Resistance to the hierarchy check-in – "we don't have hierarchy, we're all equal" (it's insidious)
 - Decisions happening outside the room (in DMs between two people) and being presented as done
 - The same person always facilitating, taking notes, or scheduling