Slowdown.AI — Design decision log
Updated after the 8/18 review. Entries marked Resolved 8/18 carry the meeting's call; the rest stand as previously logged. The three live drafts (/1, /2, /3) serve as the visual templates for most options — each decision references them rather than new mockups. All three drafts now implement the 8/18 calls (multi-page, sign-the-statement primary, featured language, CAIS footer).
Format per entry: the decision → options → my call → why → how to back out.
Tier 0 — Strategic. Not mine to decide; recommendation only.
0.1 Who owns it (entity)
Options: (a) CAIS proper, lightly branded; (b) a legally separate entity; (c) Humans First / Irreplaceable own it. Recommendation: launch under CAIS with light attribution (the FLI-statement model), and build the site so the ownership line is one string in the footer — swappable later without redesign. The entity question shouldn't block shipping. Why: Yesterday's discussion parked this deliberately. Every draft already isolates attribution to footer + one nav line. Adrian's point (C4s can push harder on signups) matters for the list, not the site — list-sharing solves it either way. Back out by: editing one footer block; no structural change. Resolved 8/18: default owner is CAIS. Explicitly not HF/Irreplaceable (avoid partisan valence); hand-off remains possible later — which is exactly what the one-string footer preserves.
0.2 The ask: "slow down" vs. "stop"
Options: (a) slowdown; (b) stop/pause; (c) slowdown headline with stop-adjacent demands underneath. Recommendation: (a), firmly. The domain is the word; polling majorities support "slow down" specifically; every draft already handles the "slow is not stop" objection, which is the site's best disarming move. Adrian's counterpoint (movements cohere around "stop") is real — answer it by routing: the movements/get-involved section (0.5) sends maximalists to Humans First / Irreplaceable rather than diluting our ask. Back out by: headline copy swap; the demands sections in all three drafts survive either framing.
0.3 Brand: new identity vs. lightly-branded campaign
Options: (a) full new identity from 99designs; (b) FLI-model — barren, statement-first, CAIS at the edges; (c) middle: own wordmark + palette, no heavy brand system. Recommendation: (c). Run the 99designs contest anyway as a cheap option generator (~$1k), but treat results as raw material, not a commitment. Rochelle has the best judgment here — her call on where between (b) and (c) to land. Open question for Dan (before the contest goes out): what do you want from 99designs — a logo, or a whole visual direction? Brief is drafted and ready (/design-brief).
0.4 Primary CTA
Options: (a) sign the statement; (b) write your representative; (c) join the movement (route onward); (d) email signup only. Recommendation: (a) as primary — best email capture, lowest friction, the count itself becomes the asset. (b) becomes the canonical second action (see ladder, 1.4). Emerson's set (sign / tell your rep / spread the word) confirmed as the right shape yesterday. Adrian's strategic input explicitly wanted here before locking. Resolved 8/18: (a) — sign the statement, chosen for email capture.
Tier 1 — Structure. Calls made.
1.1 Base direction
Options: the three live drafts — /1 movement rally, /2 evidence brief, /3 institutional register. (Two archived directions — a 20-minute humanist letter and a cinematic two-futures narrative — live in the repo as content mines.) Call: /1's register as the spine — it's the most accessible and the only one built to rally, which is goal #1 — with /2's strongest evidence modules (the compute chart, the "what grew and what didn't" table, the majority bars) compressed into a "the case" section, and /3's write-your-representative generator embedded as action #2. Why: "Hyper-accessible to the public" was repeated yesterday more than any other criterion. /2 persuades the persuadable-by-charts; /3 impresses staffers; /1 is the only one a 19-year-old shares. Hybridizing keeps each draft's single best asset. Back out by: all three remain deployed and maintained until the group ratifies; switching spines is a re-cut, not a rebuild.
1.2 Page architecture
Options: (a) one long page; (b) multi-page site.
~~Call: one long page at launch, plus /statement as a clean permalink.~~
Resolved 8/18 (overrides the call above): multi-page. Standard contents across the drafts: home (statement + sign + counter), follow-on actions, educational materials, movements & other campaigns, #slowdown gallery. Implemented in all three drafts.
1.3 The statement text
Options: each draft carries one — /1's short call ("We are not asking permission. We are asking for time."), /2's oversight-mechanics version, /3's five-article treaty form. Call: a 4-sentence composite: /1's emotional frame + one sentence of /2's concrete mechanism (independent evaluation before deployment) — short enough to read aloud in 30 seconds, concrete enough to mean something. Draft it as its own review item tomorrow; this is the highest-leverage 100 words on the site. Back out by: it's copy.
1.4 The action ladder (the retention answer)
Options: (a) one-shot sign-and-done; (b) explicit ladder of escalating actions. Call: (b) — this was yesterday's clearest convergence (Team Human's unsolved problem is post-sign retention). Concretely: sign → confirmation screen immediately offers rung 2 (send it to two specific people; write your rep via the /3 generator) → email sequence delivers one rung at a time → rotating "this month's action" slot for live comment periods / campaign moments (FTC etc., per Adrian). Back out by: each rung is a section; drop rungs, keep the sign flow.
1.5 Movements / get-involved routing
Call: include a section routing people onward to Humans First, Irreplaceable, and (selectively) partner orgs — Adrian's sister-org partnership platform idea. Slowdown.ai keeps the broad ask; the section serves maximalists and builds the partner surface. Back out by: removing one section.
1.6 Partner list-sharing at signup
Call: two checkboxes at sign: our updates (checked by default), partner-org sharing (unchecked by default — deliverability and trust norms both punish pre-checked third-party sharing). Flag: Rochelle to confirm against whatever list-sharing legal setup TH/Irreplaceable use.
1.7 Signature counter honesty
Call (already implemented in all three drafts): milestone framing at launch ("counting toward the first 25,000"), never a fabricated total; count only real events. A movement site caught inflating its number dies on the spot. Back out by: don't.
1.8 #slowdown video gallery
Call: keep Dan's gallery, launch hand-curated (weekly pass), no auto-scraper at v1. Auto-ranking is a moderation liability until volume justifies it. Gallery includes a "make one" prompt block (the /1 draft's version is the best of the three).
1.9 Educational materials
Call: link out to existing assets at launch (safe.ai statement page, AI risk overview, the AISES course) rather than writing new material. New material only where no linkable asset exists: the "answers to the eight objections" one-pager, which /2 and /3 both drafted sections for.
Tier 2 — Aesthetics & tone. Calls made, 99designs/Rochelle can override.
2.1 Register
Call: bold-accessible (the /1 family: big type, high contrast, warm paper + red) over institutional navy (/3) or editorial restraint (/2). Yesterday's Humans First reaction ("oh my god what's going on — but it's perfect") suggests appetite for intensity; /1 is intense without doom styling. Resolved 8/18: Arunim leans activist-y over institutional or narrative — consistent with the /1-spine call in 1.1.
2.2 Tone of copy
Call: plain, first-person-plural, no jargon, top fold readable at 8th-grade level. "Slow is not stop" appears above the fold. No doom imagery, no robot clichés (also encoded in the 99designs brief). Resolved 8/18 — featured language: "Slow down AI development" and "We want time" are the primary lines. Two questions the copy must answer on-site: who is "we"? (the public at large) and how much time? Both now addressed in each draft; final phrasing folds into the statement-text session (1.3).
2.3 What happens to the archived drafts
Call: the letter and the two-futures narrative are mined, not shipped: the letter's precedents passage (Asilomar, Montreal, test ban) and the futures' "race dynamic in plain words" become body copy in the hybrid.
Tier 3 — Plumbing.
3.1 Email/list tooling
Recommendation: adopt whatever stack Irreplaceable/TH already run (lists will be shared anyway; two stacks is a sync problem forever). If none is settled, Action Network is the movement-standard default. Rochelle owns this call. Resolved 8/18: interim CRM is Airtable — collect emails + info + rich metadata, then ship the list to whoever is hired to manage email. Deliberately not building list management in-house (the skepticism: in-house lists decay into AI Frontiers). Sites are not wired to Airtable yet; forms are UI-only until the base exists.
3.2 Hosting & access
Status quo: Vercel (CAIS team), drafts password-gated. Stays gated until a launch decision; slowdown.ai domain gets pointed at the final build when ratified.
Still open after 8/18
0.2 slow-vs-stop ratification by the group, 0.3 brand weight (Dan's 99designs scope answer, then Rochelle), 1.3 the statement text itself (its own drafting session — highest-leverage 100 words), 1.6 list-sharing legal check (Rochelle), and wiring the sign forms to the Airtable base once it exists.