(51) Binary forking (YRC reflection)

By Onno Hansen-Staszyński | Last Updated: 2 June 2025

When we, as facilitators of the first Youth Resilience Council, prepared the session, we noticed how dense the AI report had become. We then saw two options: either send the report to participants in advance or provide an extensive introduction to it during the session. Since attendance was voluntary and we didn’t know who would be present, we chose the second option.

Introduction on content

Our biggest dilemma while preparing an introduction on the content was to avoid anything that might steer the participants in a specific direction when formulating their recommendations. In the end, we decided to apply two principles to analytically support the participants’ understanding of the content of the report: decision forking and binary gating.

Decision forking

A decision fork is a point in the decision-making process at which one must choose one of two (or more) possible courses of action. Each option leads to a different continuation – different consequences, questions, or recommendations. A decision fork helps structure thinking.

Binary gating

A binary gate is a concept borrowed from logic and electronics, denoting a point at which only two answers are possible: yes or no, true or false, 1 or 0. In the context of analysis or decision-making, a binary gate acts like a filter – allowing only one of the two options to pass.

Explanation

When content is seemingly overwhelming, forking is a way to uncover a deeper semantic structure. To allow for more relevant decision-making, binary gating helps us to keep the structure as basic as possible: it forces us to a yes/ no decision. A consequence of using forking with only two options is that multiple rounds of forking will be needed; for a simple or less abundant amount of data, two rounds, for a more complex or abundant mass of data, three or four rounds.

Binary forking implemented

In relation with the thirteen answers given by the students that formed the basis of the AI report, two rounds of binary forking proved to be enough. I constructed the following questions:

Should school play a role in the process of helping the teenager function better in the digital world?
Should school engage in a pure transfer of information about risks, data security, and behavioural consequences, or should ideal principles apply, such as teacher empathy, understanding of the teenager’s digital reality, non-judgment, and provision of real support?

AI binary forking

I then wondered whether AI would be capable of summarizing the main content into two forks in a similar manner. I provided the following prompt, followed by the thirteen answers: “Please summarize the following 13 answers in 2 binary forks that cover the content on the most basic level”.

This is what ChatGPT came up with:

“Summary of Teenager Views on School’s Role in Digital Life

Binary Fork 1: School’s Influence on Digital Life

School has no influence
School should have influence

Binary Fork 2: What Schools Should Provide

Knowledge and awareness
Safe space and understanding”

ChatGPT’s answer convinced me that binary forking should be added to the AI report, and therefore to the prompt provided to the AI app when requested to generate the report.

During the YRC session

Explaining the use of binary forking during the actual Youth Resilience Council session was not straightforward, but when the participants understood not only its relevance for the session but also for their future intellectual endeavors, it was a ‘Eureka’ moment. This prompted us, as facilitators, to think: shouldn’t this be a part of the regular educational curriculum?

Get the latest updates