Part 1: Ecological Vision of Intelligenism — Formation of Consensus

Derivation Based on Theoretical Differentiation

Based on the definition of differentiation characteristics in the theoretical extension discussed previously, as the source theory continues to extend, when the paths of extension and subdivision become sufficiently long, various theoretical forms will inevitably emerge. Although these theories may trace back to a common main thread when examined from their origin, differences, whether large or small, will inevitably exist among the theories accepted or proposed by individuals under the influence of different environments and cognitive frameworks. When a theory proposer or other individuals intentionally construct an organization based on a specific theoretical system, it becomes necessary to establish a mechanism to coordinate the theoretical differences among potential members of the organization.

Characteristics and Design of Consensus

Based on the definition of organizational consensus in the chapter “Organizational Design of Intelligenism,” consensus is not a unified viewpoint or theory that different individuals fully agree upon, but rather a temporary conclusion or solution acceptable to different individuals, derived through the coordination of diverse theoretical perspectives. Only by establishing a coordination mechanism capable of accommodating different theories can an organization be constructed and achieve long-term sustainable development, even in the presence of theoretical differentiation or opposition. This mechanism for coordinating different theories is referred to as a consensus-building mechanism. These mechanisms are not static; as the organization forms and develops, the consensus must be adjusted and expanded based on the organization’s real-world scenarios and operational conditions. Moreover, the rules for adjusting and expanding the consensus-building mechanisms should also be part of the original consensus. In simple terms, the consensus-building mechanisms themselves are a consensus derived from an earlier consensus-building mechanism under coordination.

While the fundamental role of consensus-building mechanisms is to enable a group (before it becomes an organization) or an organization to function normally while preserving diverse theories and viewpoints, excellent consensus-building mechanisms can assist communities and organizations in exploring optimal solutions despite theoretical differentiation and conflicting viewpoints.

For example, consider a small group of five individuals (A, B, C, D, E) planning a group dinner. Their preferences are as follows: A prefers Western cuisine, B prefers barbecue, C prefers beef hotpot, D avoids pork, and E loves spicy food. The group could adopt a consensus-building mechanism, such as prioritizing A’s preference for Western cuisine because it is A’s birthday, or they could vote on each person’s suggestion, or use a random draw based on a specific rule. While all consensus-building mechanisms can lead to a temporary consensus that allows the dinner to proceed without significant conflict, different mechanisms will result in varying levels of organizational approval (refer to the definition of organizational approval and organizational approval degree in Organizational Design of Intelligenism). Therefore, superior consensus-building mechanisms not only ensure the dinner proceeds smoothly despite differing preferences but also enhance the group’s sense of organizational approval and satisfaction.

When forming a consensus through consensus-building mechanisms and selecting theories or action plans, the non-binary nature of theories should also be considered. This means that consensus-building mechanisms can not only select a single option from multiple theories or action plans but also maximize the positive value of multiple theories or action plans through methods like subgroup division. Consensus-building mechanisms should be both scientific and creative, incorporating artistic elements. For instance, in the dinner example, the consensus-building mechanism could result in a consensus where the five individuals dine separately or in smaller groups according to their preferences, then reconvene at a KTV or bar to enrich the overall experience, achieving the ultimate goal of strengthening friendships through the group activity while accommodating everyone’s dining preferences.

From this example, it is clear that forming an initial consensus within an organization is often just the beginning of the task, not the end. Communities, groups, and organizations often need to continuously refine their consensus through discussion, adjustment, and expansion in various scenarios. During this process, individuals must focus not only on tools for achieving consensus (e.g., discussions, voting, third-party suggestions) but also on process design, the evaluation of the effectiveness of consensus-building processes (e.g., participant feedback, third-party evaluations, complaint mechanisms), and iterative mechanisms based on feedback. These are all modules that consensus-building mechanisms must encompass.

Consensus and the Intelligent Consortium

As an overarching organizational network, the Intelligent Consortium likely contains numerous sub-organizational networks. Both the organizational network itself and its sub-networks require the construction of diverse consensus-building mechanisms to drive network actions. Consensus-building mechanisms serve as the driving mode for the nodes within the Intelligent Consortium organizational network. At the same time, the consensus is the decision-making conclusion (output theories, viewpoints, conclusions, and action plans) derived from the collective action of multiple driving nodes (akin to neurons). This is why, within the framework of Intelligenism, establishing key consensus-building mechanisms should precede the organizational design of the Intelligent Consortium. Only when the initial consensus-building mechanisms are established can the drive from theory to organization truly begin. In some scenarios, the driving role and significance of potential organizational individuals may dissipate before the Intelligent Consortium is successfully constructed if the organization fails to form.

Consensus and Intelligence

When reading works and articles on intelligence, a classic question often arises: Can a robot create another robot? This question reminds me of another classic dilemma: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, this paradox or dilemma is frequently and subtly expressed. If we define the Intelligent Consortium as an intelligent agent, we may face a similar dilemma in creating an Intelligent Consortium using an Intelligent Consortium. This requires answering the question: Where does the origin of an intelligent network begin? To address this dilemma, individuals must step outside the framework of the Intelligent Consortium and create pre-existing rules and settings from a higher perspective to enable the construction of the Intelligent Consortium. However, when we view the entire process of generating and iterating consensus-building mechanisms as a more fundamental intelligent agent, we face the same dilemma of how to create consensus-building mechanisms (intelligence) using consensus-building mechanisms. In this scenario, the initiating individual must step outside the framework of consensus-building mechanisms to establish a starting point (an original consensus-building mechanism), which I refer to as the “meta-consensus mechanism.” The meta-consensus mechanism originates from the theoretical output of the initiating individual as an intelligent agent, meaning the organization’s initiator must create the “first egg.” From this premise, when I define the theoretical collection within the conceptual container of Intelligenism as an intelligent agent (refer to the Construction Path subsection), it is essentially a form of consensus-building mechanism with the potential for discussion, critique, and iteration. As the author, I am merely creating the first egg.

Structure of Consensus-Building Mechanisms

Content of Consensus-Building Mechanisms

The content of consensus-building mechanisms refers to all the elements that organizational individuals need to apply during the consensus-building process. Before designing consensus-building mechanisms, the initiator must have a clear understanding of the required content. Subsequently, the initiator can establish the content framework for the consensus-building mechanisms and convert it into a directory, then gradually fill in the content to complete the initial construction of the consensus-building mechanisms.

The content framework of consensus-building mechanisms itself is part of the mechanisms and must be completed before the detailed content is confirmed. Additionally, the content framework should be published as part of the consensus-building mechanisms before content filling. It should be subject to discussion, critique, and adjustment to reach a consensus with other potential organizational individuals.

In the “Structure of Consensus-Building Mechanisms” section, starting from the “Content of Consensus-Building Mechanisms” and continuing through subsequent subsections, I provide an initial content template based on my understanding of consensus-building mechanisms. This initial template may not encompass all the content necessary for consensus-building mechanisms in practical scenarios, allowing readers and future practitioners to refine and expand it further. Any additions or adjustments to the content of consensus-building mechanisms can be attempted, with all settings based on the initiator’s and subsequent discussants’ understanding of Intelligenism theory, personal cognition, and real-world environmental needs. As the organization gradually forms and operates, the nodes and sub-networks of the organizational network will increase, requiring substantial additional content in consensus-building mechanisms to support network structure, node distribution, and sub-network management. Thus, in a normally functioning Intelligent Consortium, the types and scope of consensus-building mechanisms will be complex, some of which will be introduced in subsequent chapters on organizational construction. However, I cannot list all possible content for consensus-building mechanisms, and more personalized content will require continuous refinement by organizational individuals and other participants.

Objectives of Consensus-Building Mechanisms 

The objectives of consensus-building mechanisms (referred to as mechanism objectives) are the primary elements that must be clarified when designing consensus-building mechanisms and serve as the foundation for their smooth operation. In the group dinner example, because the mechanism’s objective was to strengthen friendships through a group activity, the final output of the consensus-building mechanisms could allow individuals to dine according to their preferences and then participate in additional activities to achieve the goal of enhancing friendships. However, if the objective of the mechanism were to evaluate a restaurant’s dishes for a food critique media program, the consensus of dining separately would not achieve this goal. In this case, a random selection mechanism to choose the restaurant would be more appropriate.

Before constructing complete consensus-building mechanisms, the initiator can publish the development goals of the Intelligent Consortium and the overall mechanism objectives (here, the overall consensus-building mechanisms refer to those of the entire organization, not those of sub-networks). For instance, an initiator might propose a mechanism objective to explore the establishment and operation of an open-air barbecue campsite through the Intelligent Consortium. Unlike editing Wikipedia entries, this initiator needs to publish consensus-building mechanisms to provide a business plan that all potential organizational individuals can refine collaboratively. This business plan, at least initially, revolves around the mechanism objective of establishing and operating the campsite, though the mechanism objective itself may evolve through discussion and critique. Similarly, as the author, I could publish consensus-building mechanisms with the mechanism objective of exploring the establishment of a platform to assist various publishers (including myself) in publishing consensus-building mechanisms. On this platform, the content of consensus-building mechanisms and organizational development goals can be discussed and refined, with the platform providing tools such as voting systems and discussion forums to facilitate consensus-building and iterative improvement. In my current vision, while the theoretical origin of the Intelligent Consortium stems from Intelligenism, its construction begins with establishing initial consensus-building mechanisms, which are developed and refined around the mechanism objectives. Thus, the starting point of the Intelligent Consortium is the mechanism objectives, which also serve as the initiator’s starting point for organizational construction.

Before constructing an organization, the organizational development goals must be established, and when publishing consensus-building mechanisms, the corresponding objectives of these mechanisms must be clarified. However, organizational development goals differ from mechanism objectives: the former reflect the purpose of constructing the Intelligent Consortium, while the latter specify the group behavioral purpose needed to achieve group consensus through consensus-building mechanisms. Within an organization, there is typically only one organizational development goal; however, different sub-networks and action phases may have distinct sub-level consensus-building mechanisms, leading to non-unique objectives for these mechanisms. From the perspective of the organization’s overall consensus-building mechanisms framework, the mechanism objectives align with the organizational development goals. Still, the sub-level consensus-building mechanisms of sub-networks and action phases may not align with the organizational goals.

As mentioned earlier, both consensus and consensus-building mechanisms are not static, and the objectives of these mechanisms also require continuous review and evaluation by the group or organization. In reality, as external environments change, groups and organizations should continually assess and evaluate the ultimate goals of the organizational network in light of its current state.

Consensus Population

The consensus population refers to the individuals covered by the initiator’s and later organizational consensus-building mechanisms. The consensus population is not fixed; in the early stages of consensus publication, it may consist of browsers interested in the proposed consensus with only a vague understanding of the initiator’s intentions and plans. As approval expands and consensus-building mechanisms are refined, the initiator may deem it necessary to plan organizational construction, requiring the attraction and screening of potential organizational individuals. These individuals may assume various roles in the future organization, such as capital providers, consumers, or labor providers, and may belong to one or more types of organizational individuals. This means the consensus population must be identified, treated differently, and assigned varying weights of driving influence (refer to the definition of Driving Influence (A) in the Driving, Action, and Mobilization section of On the Intelligent Consortium). Managing information about the consensus population is also critical, such as their history of participation in other Intelligent Consortium developments, their understanding of Intelligenism, and their discussion records in other organizations’ consensus-building mechanisms.

Beyond identifying the consensus population in the early stages of consensus-building mechanisms (before organization formation), the mechanisms must further refine processes and settings to distinguish the population, manage discussion opinions, and establish voting schemes before the organization is formed. While consensus-building mechanisms initially involve an initiator, the Intelligent Consortium under the Intelligenism framework has a strong co-governance character. As consensus-building mechanisms attract more attention and discussion, the initiator’s influence will inevitably be diluted, a process that continues during the construction and operation of the Intelligent Consortium.

Relationship Between Theory and Consensus-Building Mechanisms

It must first be clarified that, while consensus-building mechanisms include an initiating objective, their content does not encompass the proposed theory itself. Consensus-building mechanisms address how to propose a series of theories around the initiating objective and how to discuss, evaluate, and select from this theoretical collection. For example, in the restaurant selection scenario, the mechanism’s objective is to enhance group cohesion through a dining activity; however, the consensus-building mechanisms do not include potential dining options (e.g., Western cuisine, Chinese cuisine, or barbecue). Here, consensus-building mechanisms function like a computer program, with dining options serving as input values that are processed to produce an output value. While discussing a computer program, the characteristics of input values are considered, but the focus remains on the program’s structure, processes, and operational form. However, when the output of consensus-building mechanism A is consensus-building mechanism B, the latter is considered a sub-level consensus-building mechanism of A. In this scenario, while consensus-building mechanism A’s content does not include the theory itself, consensus-building mechanism B (the sub-level mechanism) can be seen as a product of the theory. When viewed from the perspective of consensus-building mechanism A, B is regarded as the output consensus. Thus, discussions at the level of consensus-building mechanism A still maintain that its content does not include the proposed theory itself (echoing the definition at the start of this section).

The definition of a theory here is broad, encompassing perspectives on specific matters, solutions to particular issues, values, adjustments to consensus-building mechanisms, or even disclosures of misconduct by the individuals within the Intelligent Consortium. Therefore, the input values for consensus-building mechanisms can be diverse and based on real-world scenario needs, with anything requiring consensus potentially included as an input item.

Defining Input and Output Values (New Consensus)

In a mature or potential organization with an extensive consensus system, each sub-network or decision-making unit within the main network may face decision-making scenarios arising from differing individual viewpoints, leading to the creation of diverse sub-level consensus-building mechanisms. Thus, when initiating a main network consensus-building mechanism, the decision-making scenarios under its mechanism objectives must be identified, and corresponding input and output value forms for sub-level consensus-building mechanisms must be determined. As mentioned earlier, the definition of output theories is extensive, and the input form depends on the decision-making scenario. Some scenarios may require not only the input item’s form but also supporting information, appendices, or data. For reference, consider Wikipedia’s editing scenario, where editing a page requires attaching source references to support the edit’s perspective or description.

After consensus-building mechanisms receive input values and complete processing, the form and content of the output values must also be specified, potentially including conclusions, single-choice results, reasons for the outcome, or disclosure methods, among other specially designated content elements.

The settings for consensus-building mechanisms in this chapter also include the input and output value settings mentioned in this section. Thus, the settings in Defining Input and Output Values can also serve as input values for a decision-making scenario’s consensus-building mechanism, producing an iterated, “optimized” version of the input and output value settings. In some scenarios, input values can be past consensuses processed through consensus-building mechanisms, allowing old consensuses to be reprocessed to generate new ones, a common form of continuous consensus iteration.

Rules and Guidelines for Consensus-Building Mechanisms

Consensus rules and guidelines primarily refer to the execution requirements for sub-level consensus-building mechanisms in different decision-making scenarios, including execution methods, rules to follow, and operational guidelines. These rules and guidelines form the core of consensus-building mechanisms, determining the operational process and ensuring smooth operation among organizational individuals with differing theories, ideas, and viewpoints. This is akin to the body of a function in computer programming, responsible for processing input values to produce output values.

If a consensus-building mechanism involves voting, its rules and guidelines should encompass the entire voting process, including precautions and penalties for cheating. If it involves discussion, the rules and guidelines may include requirements for the format and length of statements, measures to prevent spam, and penalties for rule violations.

At the outset of establishing consensus rules and guidelines, their content must achieve consensus among organizational individuals. During the organization’s subsequent development, rules and guidelines should undergo periodic consensus iteration or iteration triggered by specific mechanisms to ensure adaptability to different organizational stages or external environments.

The content covered by rules and guidelines may include:

1. Operational Processes: Regardless of the consensus tools used (e.g., voting, discussion), the corresponding tool’s process must be confirmed.
2. Recommendations: During the process, non-mandatory suggestions can be provided to organizational individuals to guide participation in ways that benefit the organization and consensus-building.
3. Prohibited Actions: These are explicitly forbidden behaviors, such as election fraud, insulting other individuals during discussions, or malicious spamming.
4. Penalty Mechanisms: For individuals engaging in prohibited actions, clear penalty systems must ensure the normal operation of consensus-building mechanisms (see Execution, Supervision, and Information Disclosure for further details).
5. Other Settings: Given the diverse consensus-building mechanisms in an Intelligent Consortium network, organizational individuals can optimize or expand rule and guideline modules to suit real-world scenarios. For instance, a consensus-building mechanism involving appointments may require additional processes beyond voting or discussion, necessitating content beyond general rules and guidelines. For non-general modules not considered by the author, organizational individuals can add or refine them after reaching consensus.

Execution, Supervision, and Information Disclosure

Once consensus-building mechanisms are published, organizational individuals or other consensus participants engage in consensus operation according to consensus rules and guidelines. During operation, some individuals may deviate from these requirements or conceal actions that negatively impact the consensus mechanism or organizational network. Therefore, consensus-building mechanisms should include supervision schemes for individual behaviors under the framework of consensus rules and guidelines, along with clear penalty clauses for violations.

In the Intelligent Consortium, as it operates along consensus-building mechanisms, supervision of individual drives and actions comes not only from specific individuals but also from the fractal diffusion of information generated by network action nodes at various levels, allowing all organizational individuals to evaluate or supervise through information dissemination. Information generated during the operation of consensus-building mechanisms is typically public and transparent, with its disclosure form also specified and agreed upon in the execution and supervision module.

Publication of Consensus-Building Mechanisms

The publication of consensus-building mechanisms differs from the publication of output values (consensus publication). Output value publication refers to the external release of results (new consensus) following the processing of input values (theories) through consensus-building mechanisms. In contrast, consensus-building mechanism publication involves publicly announcing the overall mechanism so that participants or organizational individuals can process input items to reach a consensus (output theory). However, as mentioned earlier, consensus-building mechanisms can also serve as input theories for higher-level mechanisms. In such cases, consensus-building mechanisms undergo a process of input, processing, and output to achieve optimization and iteration. Thus, consensus-building mechanism publication can be considered a specific type of consensus output presentation, though not all consensus output presentations are consensus-building mechanism publications.

The settings for consensus-building mechanism publication should cover the mechanism’s publication form, timing intervals, replacement systems for old mechanisms upon new publications, and publication channels. The form and content of the consensus-building mechanism publication can also be optimized and iterated as input content. At different organizational stages, publication forms may vary, including but not limited to third-party platforms, self-operated official platforms, video, documents, or live Q&A sessions via on-site or online broadcasts.

Cycling and Iteration

According to the basic settings of this chapter, the input value–consensus–building mechanism–new consensus process does not conclude once the output value is confirmed. The process should exhibit continuous optimization and iteration. Whether the input values are viewpoints, theories, specific consensus-building mechanisms, or past consensuses, once the input value > consensus-building mechanism > new consensus process is established, it should ultimately form a cyclical structure to enable continuous optimization and iteration of input values. In this cycle, past consensuses can re-enter the consensus-building mechanism as input values for reprocessing, transforming into an old consensus > consensus building mechanism > new consensus cycle.

During continuous cycling and iteration, consensus-building mechanisms must specify when old consensus values should be re-entered as input values for reprocessing. For example, a consensus processed through a consensus-building mechanism may require reprocessing if over 60% of the consensus population objects, triggering rediscussion or revoting according to the mechanism’s rules and guidelines. In this case, the objection by over 60% of the consensus population is the trigger condition. Different consensus-building mechanisms should include varying conditions for overturning or re-establishing consensus, determined by the mechanism’s design intent, objectives, and rules. Since consensus-building mechanisms can also be overturned as consensuses under certain conditions, their principles can refer to the Structure of Consensus-Building Mechanisms section: Consensus-building mechanism B, as a sub-level mechanism of A, is a consensus reached through A’s process. When B needs to be overturned, the initiator can include trigger clauses in B’s content, allowing B to re-enter A as an input item for re-consensus upon meeting the trigger condition. Alternatively, A can set a re-consensus trigger mechanism for B, reprocessing B as an old consensus when triggered. Overall, consensus-building mechanism B can include rules and guidelines for triggering cyclical iteration to enable continuous adjustment. These may also include exemptions for not reprocessing old consensuses after new mechanisms are formed.

In reality, some consensus may not require or allow cycling and iteration. For instance, in the dinner scenario, the dining consensus triggers a one-time action. Once the action (dinner) concludes, the consensus reached through the consensus-building mechanism is fully completed. However, if the dinner consensus-building mechanism includes a clause stating that the consensus must be reprocessed if over 60% of the group objects within five minutes, the consensus may still undergo cycling and iteration until a final consensus is reached that cannot be overturned within that time frame(5 minutes).

Consensus Expansion

Initially, there is no consensus among individuals when a theory is proposed. As external individuals recognize the theory, approval begins to expand. However, theoretical differentiation and opposition may prevent the transformation of a theory into an organization due to a limited degree of organizational approval (refer to the Organizational Approval and Organizational Approval Degree section in Organizational Design of Intelligenism). Given that the Intelligent Consortium is a bottom-up network structure, its construction relies heavily on the spontaneous participation of potential organizational individuals. Only when individuals’ organizational approval degree for certain theories (consensuses) or consensus-building mechanisms reaches a certain threshold can the Intelligent Consortium based on these theories or mechanisms gradually form.

Consensus expansion manifests in two primary forms:

1. Increasing the Number of Individuals Covered by Theoretical Consensus: The number of individuals agreeing with a consensus grows.
2. Expanding the Scope of Topics and Application Scenarios: As theories (or consensus-building mechanisms or other elements) of the organization are refined, they cover more topics and scenarios, leading to the creation of more sub-networks within the Intelligent Consortium. More sub-networks necessitate additional consensus-building mechanisms, a necessary step in the evolution from theory to organization.

For the progress of consensus expansion in the first form, initiators and subsequent groups must track the number of individuals in the consensus population, monitor expansion progress, and develop plans for continued expansion. For the second form, consensus-building mechanisms should provide a planning log for future expansion directions during initiation. This log, akin to update notes for games or software (detailing update directions), serves as a showcase for the development direction of consensus-building mechanisms. The corresponding consensus expansion plan must also achieve consensus through consensus-building mechanisms before implementation. Additionally, the planning log should outline potential setup ideas for future sub-level consensus-building mechanisms, which can then be processed as input values to facilitate consensus.

Nested Features of Consensus-Building Mechanisms

In the organizational structure of the Intelligent Consortium, various consensus-building mechanisms inevitably exist. Whether in organizational templates, action templates, or action nodes within sub-networks, decisions or executions must form network consensus within the corresponding network (the essence of driving and action is achieved through consensus formation). As mentioned in the “Nested Relationships of the Intelligent Network” section of On the Intelligent Consortium, “the Intelligent Consortium organizational network contains numerous nested sub-networks,” which also have complete driving/action node structures. These sub-networks’ nodes must form consensus with the driving nodes of larger networks as their action nodes, creating nested relationships akin to the network structure in both the overall Intelligent Consortium and its microscopic sub-networks.

As the overall consensus-building mechanisms are refined to form the Intelligent Consortium, they must include a consensus-building mechanism based on the organizational template, thereby achieving organizational consensus on the content of the rules among potential organizational individuals. This organizational consensus (organizational template) will make general arrangements for the network structure of the action template and the required consensus-building mechanisms. The consensus-building mechanisms for the overall action template network, sub-networks, and their driving/execution nodes must adhere to the rules set by the organizational template’s existing consensus-building mechanisms and latest consensuses, enabling the organizational template to drive the operation of the action template’s organizational network.

Summary

The construction of consensus and consensus-building mechanisms holds a significant position in the development process of the Intelligent Consortium. Their establishment and operation mark the substantive beginning of the Intelligent Consortium’s construction. As a bottom-up, semi-autonomous organizational network, its operation relies on consensus among organizational individuals, with a rigorous and robust consensus system forming the foundation of the Intelligent Consortium.

Given that this construction process is rare in traditional top-down organizations, many people may find consensus and its operational mechanisms unfamiliar, with consensus structures and expansion models resembling the complexity and wonder of a jungle ecosystem. Just as it is difficult to imagine how a remote village or a small grove with a few trees could evolve into an international metropolis or a thriving forest ecosystem over time, practitioners must engage in more exploration and experimentation when building organizations and corresponding consensus-building mechanisms in the early stages of theoretical development.

To help readers further understand consensus and consensus-building mechanisms, the following cases are provided:

Vision of the Final Form

As mentioned in the Wikipedia case, my envisioned form of consensus-building mechanisms closely resembles Wikipedia’s mechanisms for editing entries. However, in the context of Intelligenism and the Intelligent Consortium, the “editing” objectives focus on:

1. Re-editing the theoretical system of this book.
2. Collaborative editing of business plans derived from Intelligenism concepts.
3. Collaborative editing of the operational institutions (consensus-building mechanisms) of the Intelligent Consortium based on business plans.

I hope that through a Wikipedia-like collaborative editing model or other consensus-building mechanisms, we can achieve outputs that balance content rationality and enhance the group’s organizational approval degree. When content coverage and organizational approval degree reach the threshold required for organizational construction, the consensus-building mechanisms can serve as the operational framework for the Intelligent Consortium organizational network.