1
Outcome
What won?
- Extend lunch by 10 minutes — Yes 42 of 78 answers · 54%
- If extended, end day at: 3:45 PM 38 of 76 answers · 50% Narrow margin
- Trial period — One month 51 of 80 answers · 64%
Most polling tools end with "X% chose A". True Anonymity ends with a structured diagnostic that answers four separate questions: What won? · How strong is the mandate? · How trustworthy was the process? · How confident should we be in the data?
Below is a real-shaped sample from a hypothetical lunch-policy vote at a 120-student school. Every section maps to a section the operator actually sees in the admin dashboard.
Decision diagnostic
Voting closed May 12. 120 eligible voters. Three-question ballot.
What won?
How much of the eligible population actively supports the winner?
| Question | Winner | Support / eligible voters | Support / submitted votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extend lunch by 10 minutes | Yes | 42 of 120 · 35.0% | 42 of 78 · 53.8% |
| End day at | 3:45 PM | 38 of 120 · 31.7% | 38 of 76 · 50.0% |
| Trial period | One month | 51 of 120 · 42.5% | 51 of 80 · 63.8% |
A winner with majority of submitted votes is not the same as a winner with majority support of the community. Mandate uses the eligible-voter denominator.
Who engaged, voted, abstained, or dropped off?
Did voters read and understand the briefing?
Which questions were missed most often — useful for figuring out which parts of the briefing need rewriting.
37 of 58 voters who answered missed this. The briefing material that explains this point may need revision before voting opens.
21 of 58 voters who answered missed this. Worth a re-read of the relevant section of the briefing.
Why did people stay silent?
| Category | Count | % of ballots | % of eligible voters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information barrier | 7 | 8.5% | 5.8% |
| Trust barrier | 3 | 3.7% | 2.5% |
| Option barrier | 5 | 6.1% | 4.2% |
| Relevance barrier | 2 | 2.4% | 1.7% |
| Pressure barrier | 1 | 1.2% | 0.8% |
Did voters trust the process and feel safe answering?
These are cohort-level signals, not individual identifications. A non-zero count means at least one voter expressed that concern.
Can we interpret this result confidently?
What should the school do with this result?
Re-explain before acting.
Voters may not have had the context they needed — comprehension accuracy on Q2 (the main tradeoff) was 36%. Reopen the briefing period, revise the explanation, then collect a follow-up vote. The mandate on submitted votes is real but the eligible-population mandate is moderate, and the comprehension signal is weak enough that an action taken now may not feel legitimate to the community in retrospect.
Schools can collect votes with anything. The hard part is knowing whether the result is worth acting on. True Anonymity's diagnostic answers that — with denominators, qualitative bands instead of fake-precision scores, and a recommended next step framed institutionally (never blaming voters for what is usually a communication failure).
Qualitative bands — Strong, Moderate, Weak, Insufficient — not "73/100". Fake precision is dangerous; bands are honest.
"50% picked X" can mean 1 of 2 voters or 60 of 120. Every percentage on the report carries both numerator and denominator.
Low comprehension is reported as "the briefing may need revision", never "the students didn't understand". Failure modes are institutional.