# Kin Vow pilot evaluation An imperfect union. A promise to each other. Proposed plan, version 0.2 | October 31, 2026 Kin Vow is a project in development and a working name pending rights review. No gatherings are scheduled, and no host organization or official chapter is confirmed. This plan describes how a small adult pilot could learn from four gatherings within a 90-day preparation and review period. It contains no results. Its thresholds are practical choices to review, not validated measures of social change. Plan for 8-12 participants, with a target of 12, plus two hosts. Prepare on days 1-14; hold gatherings on days 15-21, 35-42, 56-63, and 77-84; review on days 85-90; prepare the internal account after day 90. Gatherings are roughly three weeks apart. Preparation may take longer, and no launch date is fixed. The [host guide](host-guide.md) sets out the readiness conditions. ## What we want to learn - Do people return and find the activity worth their time? - Can participants use listening, keep or revise a promise, offer wanted help, or respect a boundary? - Can people disagree, decline a prompt, and raise a concern without pressure? - If a shared task is chosen, does it help the people who wanted it? - Can hosts sustain the work and address concerns responsibly? Do not infer that the pilot heals polarization, changes democracy, or represents Americans as a whole. Followers, pledge signatures, and press mentions measure reach; they do not answer these questions. Listening can be enough. Participation does not require taking the vow or making a new commitment. A shared task is optional and depends on need, permission, capacity, and participant interest. Record why a task was revised, stopped, or not chosen without treating that decision as a failure by itself. ## Explain this to participants “We would like to learn whether these gatherings are useful. Feedback is optional and anonymous unless you choose to provide contact information separately for a concern. We record the number attending, without taking an evaluation attendance roster. Please leave names and identifying stories out of feedback. You can skip every question and still participate. We will share a short group-level account of what we learned with participants. Any public report requires a separate review.” ## Collect the minimum | Information | Method | Limit | | --- | --- | --- | | Attendance | Hosts count participants at each gathering, excluding hosts and observers. | No names or sign-in roster for evaluation. Repeat attendance is self-reported at the end. | | Meeting experience | Optional paper form at each gathering. | No political affiliation, demographics, employment details, or personal histories. | | Everyday practice | Optional self-report at tables two through four about listening, a promise, useful help, or a boundary. | No new commitment is required. Do not require descriptions of another person or proof of kindness. | | Shared-task usefulness | If a task was chosen, ask the intended users or venue contact whether the agreed result helped. | Record a brief conclusion and its basis without a testimonial or identifying quotation. Note when no task was chosen or a task was revised, stopped, or still underway. | | Effort and cost | Hosts record total preparation hours, meeting hours, and expenses. | Separate costs incurred from future estimates; do not collect participant spending. | | Conduct response | Reviewer checks whether reports received a response and whether any unresolved pattern requires a pause. | Incident contents and identities stay out of evaluation. No public incident counts from a tiny group if they could identify someone. | The absence of complaints does not establish good conditions. Read it alongside whether participants felt able to raise a concern. Surveys from returning participants will miss some people who left; state that limitation. Do not chase people who have declined contact. ## Short meeting form Use the same questions at every table. Hosts may read the form privately at a participant's request, while explaining that spoken responses are not anonymous to the reader. ```text KIN TABLE FEEDBACK Optional. Please leave out names and identifying details. For each statement, mark: Yes / Partly / No / Prefer not to answer 1. I had a fair chance to speak or pass. 2. I felt heard when I chose to contribute. 3. I could disagree without pressure to change my views. 4. I knew how to raise a concern, including one about a host. 5. This gathering was worth my time. What should we change? (optional) ____________________________________________________________ For a concern that needs a response, use the separate feedback notice. This anonymous form cannot support a personal reply. ``` At tables two through four, add these optional questions: ```text Since the last gathering, what did you try? Mark any that apply. Listening with care / Keeping or revising a promise / Offering wanted help / Respecting a boundary / None of these / Prefer not to answer If you chose a commitment, which best describes it? Completed / Revised and followed through / Still underway / Did not follow through / Made no commitment / Prefer not to answer ``` At table four, add: ```text How many pilot tables have you attended, including today? 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Prefer not to answer Across the pilot, did you use at least one practice you found useful? Listening, an existing promise, wanted help, or a boundary can count. Yes / Partly / No / Prefer not to answer Would you choose to attend another Kin Table? Yes / Maybe / No / Prefer not to answer What, if anything, changed in how you treated someone? Please describe only your own behavior, without identifying anyone. ____________________________________________________________ ``` These questions support descriptive learning. They are not a validated survey or a clinical assessment. Do not add together anonymous responses across meetings as though they came from distinct people. ## Handle information carefully Assign one evaluation keeper before the pilot. Hold paper forms in a closed envelope or locked storage; limit access to the keeper and one reviewer. If forms are entered electronically, use a restricted local file. Do not send raw responses or incident records to an AI service, a group chat, a public repository, or a shared marketing system. Keep any optional event-contact list separate and explain its purpose when someone opts in. Do not add people to a national mailing list through pilot participation. Do not copy incident records into the evaluation file. Make aggregate counts and a short paraphrase of recurring suggestions. Omit identifying details, distinctive stories, and verbatim quotations. Never promise that a small group's responses are impossible to recognize. Set a review date 30 days after the final pilot decision. At that review, obtain the owner's approval to dispose of raw evaluation forms and retain only the aggregate account, unless a specific unresolved need requires a short extension. Explain any extension to participants. This is a proposed retention arrangement; no deletion is authorized by this document. Incident records require their own need-based review and must not be deleted automatically with survey forms. ## Decide what happens next For a pilot beginning with 12 participants, use these provisional signs to consider another cohort. Agree on the criteria for the actual starting group before reviewing results: - At least eight final respondents report attending three or four tables. - At least eight final respondents report using one practice they found useful. Listening alone, an existing promise, wanted help, or a boundary can count. - Most respondents say the gatherings were worth their time, with no pattern of pressure to agree or disclose. - If a shared task was chosen, intended users consider it useful or participants explain why it was revised, stopped, or remains underway. Choosing no task does not count against the pilot. - Hosts can explain the actual workload, and a willing host pair can support another cohort within an agreed limit. - Every conduct report has received a response, and no unresolved pattern of intimidation remains. Report counts and denominators. For example, say “8 of 10 final respondents reported using a practice they found useful; 12 people attended the first gathering.” Describe those as self-reports and do not assume absent participants had the same experience. Adjust the provisional counts to the actual starting group before reviewing outcomes. These signs support a judgment, not an automatic pass. A serious unresolved concern can justify pausing even with strong attendance. Low participation or mixed feedback can justify revising and repeating the pilot. Stopping is a valid result. ## Final account Prepare a short internal account after day 90 with the dates and scope; attendance and response counts; reported practices and follow-through; the status and usefulness of any shared task; host hours and costs; suggestions and unresolved limits; and the decision to repeat, revise, or stop. Share the group-level account with participants through the contact method they chose, after that communication is authorized. Review separately before any public claim or publication. Any later expansion needs a further test led by hosts other than the founder; this pilot cannot establish national effectiveness.