PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION

Bag #3: Community Engagement and Democratic Work Allocation Platform

DRAFT - Ready for Review

FILING INFORMATION

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is related to:

1. U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/925,672, filed November 26, 2025, titled “Cooperative Commerce Platform with Distributed Economic Architecture”
2. U.S. Provisional Application No. [TBD], titled “Compliant Mechanism Beverage Tracking Coaster with QR Integration”

The present application describes community engagement systems that operate within and extend the platform described in the referenced applications.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to digital platform systems for community engagement, work allocation, and collaborative decision-making, and more particularly to systems employing staged trust hierarchies, democratic voting mechanisms, automated quality monitoring, economic incentive structures, and gamified idea development for managing distributed workforces and community-driven innovation.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Traditional digital platforms for work allocation suffer from several limitations:

1. Binary trust models that either grant full access or none
2. Centralized decision-making that doesn’t scale
3. Feedback systems that are overwhelmed by noise and trolling
4. Static opportunity displays that don’t reflect real-time relevance
5. Disconnection between idea generation and project funding
6. Winner-take-all economics that don’t compensate contributors

There exists a need for platform systems that:

1. Progressively grant trust based on demonstrated performance
2. Enable democratic self-organization of teams
3. Filter low-quality feedback through economic mechanisms
4. Display opportunities with time-based relevance protection
5. Convert community enthusiasm directly into project funding
6. Distribute rewards proportionally to all contributors

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a suite of interconnected systems for community engagement and work allocation comprising:

1. Staged Trust Hierarchy: A five-level system for progressively granting autonomy to workers based on AI-assisted performance tracking
2. Democratic Team Formation: Self-selecting team assembly using anonymous weighted voting with incumbent advantage
3. Quality Canary System: Automated quality monitoring with traffic-light indicators and intervention triggers
4. Economic Feedback Filtering: Multi-path feedback collection with differential pricing and grammar-based validation
5. Time-Protected Display: Opportunity presentation with protection periods and transparency mechanics
6. Lightning Funding: Idea visualization with threshold-based automatic project creation
7. Crown Competition: Periodic winner-take-all rankings with stake-based reward distribution

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

SYSTEM 1: STAGED TRUST HIERARCHY (MimicTrunk)

1.1 Overview

The staged trust system comprises five levels of worker autonomy, each with corresponding AI assistance, approval requirements, and compensation:

1.2 Advancement Criteria

Advancement from one stage to the next requires:

• Minimum tenure at current stage
• Performance metrics exceeding threshold
• Error rate below maximum
• Approval rate above minimum
• Recommendation from higher-stage member

1.3 AI Assistance Mechanism

At Stage 1, the AI assistant:

1. Receives task assignment
2. Generates multiple response options
3. Explains reasoning for each option
4. Trainee selects or modifies response
5. Response submitted for approval
6. AI learns from approval/rejection patterns

SYSTEM 2: DEMOCRATIC TEAM FORMATION

2.1 Formation Process

When multiple candidates apply for a role:

1. Discussion Phase (48-72 hours)

   • Candidates enter shared communication channel
   • Free discussion and introduction
   • No binding commitments

2. Voting Phase

   • Anonymous ballot for each candidate
   • Options: YES (include), NO (exclude), ABSTAIN
   • Cannot vote on self

3. Calculation Phase

   • Base vote weight: 1.0
   • Incumbent bonus: +0.1 per existing team member
   • Maximum weight: 1.5 (cap)
   • Threshold: Majority YES votes

4. Team Formation

   • Accepted candidates join team
   • Rejected candidates may apply elsewhere
   • Team compensation pool divided among members

2.2 Exit Cost Escalation

To prevent casual commitment:

Exit fees distributed: 50% to team pool, 50% to platform.

2.3 Team Compensation Bonus

Larger teams receive bonus compensation:

SYSTEM 3: QUALITY CANARY SYSTEM (NOID Routing)

3.1 Three-Human Rule

Every output passes through three humans:

1. Creator: Produces the work
2. Peer Reviewer: Checks quality/errors
3. Approver: Signs off or escalates

3.2 Automatic Classification

Incoming items classified by:

• Type: Support, Content, Technical, Financial, Strategic, Crisis
• Urgency: Immediate, Today, This Week, Whenever, Scheduled
• Complexity: Standard, Complex, Unprecedented

Classification determines routing:

• Standard + Not Urgent → Auto-delegate to team
• Complex → Senior review
• Unprecedented → Founder review
• Crisis → Founder immediate

3.3 Canary Metrics

3.4 Automatic Interventions

• Yellow: Peer mentor assigned, additional check-ins
• Red: Immediate mentor, workload reduction, improvement plan

SYSTEM 4: ECONOMIC FEEDBACK FILTERING (Maître D')

4.1 Four Feedback Paths

Path A - Vent:

• Cost: 1 Credit
• Requirement: None
• Reward: None
• Purpose: Express frustration

Path B - Solve:

• Cost: Free
• Requirement: Grammar validation (capital, period, complete sentence)
• Reward: 50 Credits if adopted
• Purpose: Constructive improvement

Path C - Break Dishes:

• Cost: 1 Credit
• Duration: 24 hours unlimited access
• Experience: Cathartic dish destruction game
• Purpose: Stress relief

Path D - Destroy Ruins:

• Cost: 10 Credits
• Duration: 24 hours unlimited access
• Experience: Epic building destruction game
• Purpose: Deep catharsis

4.2 Grammar Validation

Solutions must pass:

1. First character is uppercase letter
2. Last character is period
3. Sentence structure detected (subject + verb)

This filters low-effort submissions while remaining easy for legitimate users.

4.3 Catharsis Game Design

Games provide:

• Physics-based destruction
• Satisfying sound effects
• Visual particle effects
• Unlimited interaction during access window
• No game over state
• Optional return to constructive feedback

SYSTEM 5: TIME-PROTECTED DISPLAY (Poster Walls)

5.1 Poster Mechanics

• Users post opportunities (Bounties/Rewards) to virtual walls
• Each poster has a protection period (default 3 hours)
• During protection, poster cannot be covered

5.2 Transparency Mechanic

If User B attempts to cover User A’s protected poster:

• User B’s poster becomes transparent
• User A’s poster shows through
• User B’s content is visible but subordinate
• After protection expires, User B can cover normally

5.3 Wall Locations

Multiple walls with different characteristics:

• Main Hall: High traffic, premium visibility
• Side Corridors: Medium traffic, niche focus
• Underground: Discovery-focused, experimental

SYSTEM 6: LIGHTNING FUNDING (Brainstorm Chamber)

6.1 Idea Visualization

Ideas represented as light creatures with evolution based on support:

6.2 Inspection Cost

To view idea details and vote:

• Minimum commitment: 1 MARK
• Must vote FOR or AGAINST
• MARKs escrowed until resolution

6.3 Voting Mechanics

• FOR: Adds to net support
• AGAINST: Subtracts from net support
• Net Support = FOR - AGAINST

6.4 Lightning Thresholds

6.5 Lightning Strike

When threshold met:

1. FOR MARKs become project budget
2. AGAINST MARKs return to voters
3. Idea converts to Bounty
4. Creator offered leadership
5. FOR voters become stakeholders (pro-rata)

6.6 Fizzle Mechanic

If no activity for 30 days:

• Idea archived
• 95% of MARKs returned
• 5% platform fee
• Can be revived by new activity

SYSTEM 7: CROWN COMPETITION (Game Arena)

7.1 Competition Periods

“There Can Be Only ONE”

7.2 Scoring Factors

7.3 Prize Pool Funding

Every game play fee distributed:

• 70% to game creators/team
• 15% to platform
• 15% to Crown Prize Pool

7.4 Stake-Based Distribution

All contributors share in winnings:

• Recorded stake percentages
• Automatic distribution
• Same ratios as regular revenue

CLAIMS

Independent Claims

Claim 1: A method of managing worker trust in a digital platform, comprising: a) assigning workers to an initial trust level with maximum AI assistance and minimum autonomy; b) tracking performance metrics including approval rate, error rate, and escalation rate; c) automatically advancing workers to higher trust levels upon meeting predefined criteria; d) progressively reducing AI assistance and approval requirements at each higher level; e) scaling compensation in proportion to trust level.

Claim 2: A system for democratic team formation, comprising: a) a discussion interface enabling candidate interaction prior to voting; b) an anonymous voting mechanism for peer evaluation; c) a weighting algorithm granting incumbent team members increased vote weight; d) an acceptance threshold based on majority weighted votes; e) an exit cost schedule that escalates over time to discourage casual commitment.

Claim 3: A workflow routing system with quality monitoring, comprising: a) a classification engine categorizing items by type, urgency, and complexity; b) a routing engine directing items based on classification; c) a three-human rule requiring creator, peer reviewer, and approver for each output; d) canary metrics tracking response time, error rate, and escalation rate; e) automatic intervention triggers based on metric thresholds; f) a mentor assignment system for underperforming workers.

Claim 4: A feedback collection system with economic filtering, comprising: a) multiple feedback paths with different cost structures; b) a free solution path requiring grammar validation; c) a paid vent path requiring no validation; d) paid catharsis game access paths providing time-limited stress relief; e) automatic reward distribution for adopted solutions; f) pattern analysis across feedback submissions.

Claim 5: A display system for opportunities with time-based protection, comprising: a) a virtual wall metaphor for displaying opportunity postings; b) a protection period during which postings cannot be replaced; c) a transparency mechanic wherein attempted replacement of protected content renders replacement content transparent; d) automatic expiration enabling content replacement after protection period; e) multiple wall locations with different visibility characteristics.

Claim 6: An idea management system with threshold-based funding, comprising: a) visual representation of ideas as evolving entities based on community support; b) an inspection cost requiring minimum vote commitment to view details; c) bidirectional voting wherein FOR votes add to and AGAINST votes subtract from net support; d) a lightning threshold triggering automatic project creation; e) conversion of FOR votes into project funding budget; f) return of AGAINST votes to voters; g) stakeholder registration based on voting contribution.

Claim 7: A competition system for ranking creative works, comprising: a) multiple competition periods with different durations; b) a prize pool accumulated from participation fees; c) a single winner per period determined by multi-factor scoring; d) automatic prize distribution to winner and all recorded contributors; e) stake-based proportional distribution following recorded contribution percentages.

Claim 8: A method of ensuring leadership commitment, comprising: a) requiring an ante deposit to claim project leadership; b) progressively reducing the ante requirement as team members join; c) holding the ante in escrow during project execution; d) returning the ante upon successful project completion; e) distributing the ante to team members upon leader abandonment.

Dependent Claims

Claim 9: The method of Claim 1, wherein AI assistance comprises generating multiple response options with explanations, enabling worker selection and modification.

Claim 10: The method of Claim 1, further comprising equity vesting triggered by advancement to specified trust levels.

Claim 11: The system of Claim 2, wherein incumbent vote weight increases by a fixed increment per existing team member up to a maximum cap.

Claim 12: The system of Claim 2, wherein exit fees are distributed partially to remaining team members and partially to the platform.

Claim 13: The system of Claim 2, further comprising a team compensation bonus that increases total compensation as team size grows.

Claim 14: The system of Claim 3, wherein canary metrics include traffic-light status indicators automatically triggering mentor assignment.

Claim 15: The system of Claim 3, further comprising SpotCheck sampling randomly selecting completed outputs for quality verification.

Claim 16: The system of Claim 3, further comprising test project assignment as prerequisite for leadership positions.

Claim 17: The system of Claim 4, wherein grammar validation requires capital letter, terminal period, and sentence structure detection.

Claim 18: The system of Claim 4, wherein catharsis games comprise physics-based destruction with unlimited interaction during access period.

Claim 19: The system of Claim 4, further comprising redirection to constructive feedback path after catharsis game session.

Claim 20: The system of Claim 5, further comprising bounty/reward posting with Team Lead Ante requirements.

Claim 21: The system of Claim 6, wherein visual evolution comprises distinct creature types at support thresholds.

Claim 22: The system of Claim 6, further comprising fizzle mechanic archiving inactive ideas with partial vote return.

Claim 23: The system of Claim 6, further comprising personal idea collection (Idea Jar) with filtering and categorization.

Claim 24: The system of Claim 7, wherein scoring factors comprise plays, completion rate, player rating, return players, and revenue.

Claim 25: The system of Claim 7, further comprising historical crown tracking and display.

Claim 26: The method of Claim 8, wherein ante reduction follows schedule based on team assembly percentage.

ABSTRACT

A platform system for managing community-driven work allocation and idea development through novel mechanisms including: a staged trust hierarchy with five levels of worker autonomy and AI assistance; democratic team formation using anonymous weighted voting with incumbent advantage and escalating exit costs; automated quality routing with canary metrics and intervention triggers; economic feedback filtering with differential pricing, grammar validation, and catharsis game options; time-protected opportunity display using transparency mechanics; threshold-based idea funding converting community votes into project budgets; and winner-take-all competition systems with stake-based prize distribution. The system integrates economic incentives with community governance to create self-regulating work marketplaces where quality emerges from incentive alignment rather than centralized control.

INVENTOR DECLARATION

I, Jonathan Ray Jones, declare that I am the original inventor of the subject matter claimed herein.

Signature: /Jonathan R. Jones/ Date: _______________

FILING NOTES

Relationship to Existing Filings:

• Bag #1 (63/925,672): Core platform architecture
• Bag #2 (TBD): Physical medallion product
• Bag #3 (This filing): Community engagement systems

These systems extend the platform described in Bag #1 with specific mechanisms for worker management, feedback collection, and idea development.

Claim Count: 26 claims (8 independent, 18 dependent) Estimated full expansion: 52 claims

Filing Timeline:

• Review and finalize: Within 3 days
• File: Within 7 days
• Deadline to convert: 12 months from filing

ESTIMATED FILING COST

Document prepared for USPTO Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) Patent Center Account: 73348481