ANTICIPATE. EVALUATE. GUIDE

The future depends on pathway decisions

The GESDA Compass is a methodology and interactive tool that helps institutions stress-test emerging-technology projects across plausible futures — so they can fund, deploy, scale, pause, or prohibit with confidence

Launch Compass

Designed for responsible decision-makers

Illustrative BCI pathways

Adaptive neurointerface
EEG wearable
Cloud AI analytics
Adolescent users

Many pathways. Different futures

Clinical BCI rehabilitation setting with a patient and clinician

Clinical Rehabilitation

Therapeutic impact at scale

ImpactHigh
RiskLow
TrustHigh

Strong clinical governance
Patient privacy protected
Slower diffusion, higher trust

In line with Current Frameworks

Consumer BCI wellness wearable used with a mobile phone

Consumer Wellness

Rapid adoption, weak oversight

ImpactMedium
RiskMedium
TrustLow

Limited transparency
Behavioral influence risks
Normalization accelerates

Partially in line with Current Frameworks

Platform Ecosystem

Scale, monetization, lock-in

ImpactHigh
RiskHigh
TrustVery low

Neurodata monetization
Agency erosion risk
Geopolitical fragmentation

Significant tension with Current Frameworks

Stress test. Uncertainty. Stakeholders. Context. Clarity for better decisions

Designed for decision-makers across sectors

Foundations
Regulators
Investors
Researchers
International Organizations

About

The first Compass for responsible technology decisions

Institutions evaluating emerging technologies face fragmented information, hidden assumptions, and inconsistent judgments across teams and contexts. The Compass makes this reasoning explicit

The Compass is a methodology and interactive tool for stress-testing emerging-technology projects across likely futures. BCI is the first and currently available domain. The shared method and platform support adaptation to other fields. See domains and availability. It supports decisions; it does not replace expert judgment or certify technologies

What the tool does

Start with the question you have

Three connected experiences, each with a different starting point

A wheelchair user and a support person considering a tablet together at home.

Explore

What could be possible?

Explore opportunities and possible futures

Four professionals examining a project proposal together at a meeting table.

Assess

What matters for this project?

Examine evidence, risks and pathways

A researcher comparing project summaries spread across a desk.

Monitor

What does the wider picture show?

Identify patterns, shifts and gaps

Inside explore

Start with what someone needs

“I want to communicate independently at home.”

An illustrative starting point

You do not need a project specification. Start with the person’s goal, then explore what might help and what you need to learn

Clarify the need

Who is it for? What already helps? What would make a difference?

Explore approaches

Find relevant cases. Compare contexts, evidence and responsibilities

Choose next questions

Identify what needs investigation before taking an idea further

What you take away

An exploration brief with possibilities, case leads and questions for discussion

Inside Assess

What decision are you preparing?

Whether you build, fund or review a project, bring its evidence, uncertainties and responsibilities into focus

Develop or advance

Research teams · Industry

What needs to change before a pilot?

Fund or invest

Foundations · Grantmakers · Investors

What supports committing resources?

Review or set conditions

Editors · Regulators · Assurance bodies

What evidence or safeguards are missing?

Project Profile · Project Briefing · Decision Surface

What you take away

A structured assessment to support your decision

Inside Monitor

Choose the view your question needs

Look across your assessments or the published field to find patterns worth examining

Your portfolio

What do our assessments show?

Compare selected assessments to identify recurring gaps, differences and review priorities

For funders, investors and portfolio teams

Open my portfolio

Sign-in required

Published BCI field

What is visible across the field?

Examine patterns in published BCI cases, with their sources and coverage

For policy, standards, international bodies and research

View global landscape

Public access

How Monitor works

Who it helps

Different roles, shared questions and evidence

Fund & translate Screen proposals, identify missing safeguards, and compare portfolios with a consistent risk-benefit language Foundation Granting agency Needs: funding conditions, milestones, responsible translation, public-benefit evidence, and grant governance

Fund & translate

Compare support options against framework duties

Funders need a shared way to compare proposals, identify framework-relevant conditions, and explain what would need to be true before promise becomes responsible translation

Proposal Claims, evidence, pathway, risks, and public-benefit rationale

Funding terms Conditions, milestones, review cadence, and safeguards

01 Funding Conditions

Translate framework concerns into concrete grant terms, milestones, and review gates

02 Portfolio Comparison

Compare projects with a common risk-benefit language instead of isolated narratives

03 Translation Pathway

See what evidence is needed before a project moves toward clinical, consumer, or public use

Govern & coordinate Track governance gaps, deployment signals, sensitive contexts, and the guardrails likely to matter Regulator Lawmaker Diplomat International organization / norm setter Needs: evidence requirements, policy options, cross-border monitoring, norm-setting agendas, and stakeholder legitimacy

Govern & coordinate

Coordinate rules before deployment outruns agreement

Regulators, lawmakers, diplomats, and norm setters need to see where evidence is thin, where jurisdictions diverge, and which guardrails can travel across contexts

Signals Deployment, vulnerability, jurisdiction, maturity, and monitoring gaps

Guardrails Evidence requirements, policy options, norms, and oversight agenda

01 Evidence Thresholds

Define what must be demonstrated before deployment, procurement, or cross-border use

02 Policy Options

Compare bans, conditions, sandboxes, disclosure rules, certification, and monitoring duties

03 Norm Legitimacy

Connect technical signals to stakeholder legitimacy, public trust, and coordination agendas

Invest & assure Evaluate readiness, liability exposure, adoption pathway, and the questions that change confidence Venture capital investor Technical standards / assurance body Needs: diligence, downside risk, conformance evidence, lifecycle controls, auditability, and standards maturity

Invest & assure

Separate technical readiness from adoption and assurance risk

Investors and assurance bodies need to distinguish promising systems from systems that have the evidence, controls, and audit trail needed for trustworthy adoption

Claims Readiness, market path, liability, controls, and conformance assumptions

Confidence Diligence questions, lifecycle controls, auditability, and standards fit

01 Diligence

Identify the missing questions that change valuation, confidence, and go/no-go timing

02 Conformance Evidence

Map claims to controls, lifecycle records, audit trails, and standards maturity

03 Downside Risk

Expose deployment, liability, misuse, and adoption risks before they become hidden costs

Build & deploy Connect responsible design choices to viable products, partnerships, deployment plans, and durable support Industry / device maker Platform builder / implementation partner Needs: product design, go-to-market, partnerships, roadmap priorities, application fit, and ecosystem impact

Build & deploy

Connect responsible design to viable deployment

Industry teams, device makers, platform builders, and implementation partners need to see how design, evidence, governance, and deployment choices affect product viability and responsible adoption

Product choices Design, evidence, users, support, partners, business model, and deployment context

Product strategy Design priorities, roadmap gates, partnerships, application fit, and monitoring

01 Design Priorities

Identify product choices that reduce exposure without erasing the intended benefit

02 Roadmap & Partnerships

Surface evidence, regulatory, clinical, support, and ecosystem dependencies before route lock

03 Application Fit

Test whether the proposed use, users, business model, and deployment context remain credible together

Research & publish Connect ethical review concerns to concrete evidence, assumptions, risks, benefits, and follow-up conditions Scientist / research team Publisher / journal editor Needs: study design gaps, ethics, disclosure, limitations, population evidence, and misuse-aware publication

Research & publish

Connect ethical review to the evidence record

Research teams and editors need to turn broad ethical concerns into study design requirements, disclosure choices, limitations, and publication conditions

Study Record Design, population, evidence quality, assumptions, benefits, and risks

Publication Terms Disclosure, limitations, misuse context, and follow-up requirements

01 Study Design

Surface missing evidence, population gaps, endpoints, comparators, and uncertainty

02 Disclosure

Clarify methods, limits, conflicts, data handling, and follow-up obligations

03 Publication Risk

Assess misuse, overclaiming, dual-use signals, and conditions for responsible release

Exploring for yourself, supporting someone or learning about the field? Find your own starting point

See examples

A question, a reader, a useful next step

For a clinical programme lead What would our programme need before introducing this approach?

Examine evidence, meaningful outcomes and continuing support

For a product developer Which claims can we support before launch?

Separate a promising product story from demonstrated capabilities

For a regulator What needs scrutiny in workplace monitoring?

Examine the safety rationale, worker agency and alternatives

For an investor Which dependencies should shape our diligence?

Investigate continuing support, security and expansion assumptions

Find examples for your role

Decision surface

Turn uncertainty into a defensible next move

Launch Compass to profile an emerging-technology project, compare likely pathways, stress-test risk and benefit, and see how evidence, safeguards, and uncertainties map to existing frameworks before institutions make funding, deployment, scale, pause, or prohibition decisions

Open Assess Read a worked example

Sign-in and assessment access required