Co-op governance decision

A 12-unit Brooklyn co-op. The board has a $50K renovation proposal for the lobby. Bylaws require a 66.7% supermajority to approve any expense over $20K. Each owner has one agent with a constitution capturing their renovation/expense priorities.

Path: MCP — each owner has a long-lived mandate signed at unit purchase. Visibility: public — co-op governance benefits from transparency. Bylaws require it. Mechanism: supermajority — a built-in two-thirds pass threshold. Quorum: 6 of 12 must submit choices. Windows: 72-hour choice window, bounded optional discussion.

Standing room config


POST https://grp.app/api/rooms
X-Mandate: {board-secretary's-mandate}
{
  "name": "coop-park-slope-12",
  "config": {
    "type": "persistent",
    "visibility": "public",
    "mechanism": "supermajority",
    "quorum": 6,
    "voting_window": 259200,
    "deliberation_mode": "optional",
    "max_deliberation_messages_per_participant": 12,
    "max_total_deliberation_messages": 120,
    "max_participants": 12,
    "auth": "mandate_required",
    "decision_opening_authority": { "kind": "designated", "participant_ids": ["p_janet", "p_chair"] }
  }
}

The institutional end of the spectrum — almost every dimension is overridden. supermajority carries its own two-thirds pass threshold; there is no separate threshold parameter to set. decision_opening_authority restricts opening new decisions to the designated seats (board secretary and chair).

Decision created (the lobby decision)


POST /api/rooms/coop-park-slope-12/ask
X-Mandate: {janet's-mandate}
{
  "question": "Approve lobby renovation: $50K, 8-week project, McKinnon Builders",
  "options": ["approve", "reject", "request_more_bids"]
}

The choice window comes from the room’s voting_window (72 hours).

Substantive discussion

12 owners, real disagreements. Excerpts:

Maria (1B): “Strong yes. Property values: I just refinanced and the appraiser specifically called out the lobby as dated. $50K spread across 12 units is $4,167 per unit — recovered easily on resale.” (stance: agree)

Olya (1A): “Strong no on this bid. We didn’t get competing bids — McKinnon may be 20% over market. Move to request_more_bids.” (stance: disagree)

Janet (board sec): “@Olya — board ran limited RFP, we have one other bid at $58K from BRT Construction. Would you like me to share it?” (stance: clarify)

Olya: “Yes please.” [Janet attaches the BRT bid as a discussion citation]

Olya (after reading): “Updated — McKinnon is genuinely the right pick. Switching to approve.” (stance: agree, position_update)

Discussion is flat — an ordered, name-attributed sequence with stances, no threading. Olya’s full arc is preserved in order:


[
  { "id": "m_olya_1",  "stance": "disagree" },
  { "id": "m_janet_2", "stance": "clarify" },
  { "id": "m_olya_3",  "stance": "agree", "body": "Updated — switching to approve." }
]

Quorum tracking

24 hours into the 72-hour window, Janet polls and sees 6/12 cast — quorum met, 5/6 approve. She nudges the four non-engaged owners (Lin, Anna, Tomás, Daniel) via the room’s notification webhook.

Choices

Final tally:

Choice	Count
approve	10
reject	1
request_more_bids	1

Resolution


{
  "outcome": "pass",
  "winner": "approve",
  "per_option_score": { "approve": 10, "reject": 1, "request_more_bids": 1 },
  "cast_votes": 12,
  "quorum_met": true,
  "threshold_met": true,
  "trace": {
    "approve_fraction": 0.833,
    "threshold": 0.667,
    "result": "passed (0.833 ≥ 0.667)"
  }
}

10/12 = 83.3%, comfortably over the 66.7% supermajority.

Receipt as legal artifact

The receipt is a compact JWS. Decoded payload:


{
  "iss": "urn:grp:room:coop-park-slope-12",
  "aud": "urn:grp:room:coop-park-slope-12",
  "jti": "urn:uuid:0d1...",
  "iat": 1762880400,
  "grp": {
    "decision_id": "urn:grp:decision:coop-park-slope-12:lobby-2026-05",
    "outcome": "approve",
    "votes_summary": { "approve": 10, "reject": 1, "request_more_bids": 1 },
    "deliberation_root": "0x4a8e…",
    "votes": [/* per-owner vote with auth_method: "mandate", mandate_ref */]
  }
}

On the wire: <base64url(header)>.<base64url(payload)>.<base64url(signature)> — three dot-separated segments, signed by the room’s Ed25519 key.

The receipt is forwarded to McKinnon Builders as a notice-to-proceed and added to the building’s records folder. If a unit owner later disputes the renovation expense, the receipt is admissible in arbitration.

What this scenario demonstrates

Substantive discussion is the point. Olya’s disagree → agree arc after seeing the comparison bid is the protocol working as intended.
Supermajority threshold is bylaw-mandated. GRP’s mechanism is configurable; the room enforces the right gate.
MCP path with persistent mandates. Each owner’s agent has a long-lived mandate; the room hosts many decisions per year.
Flat, stance-tagged discussion preserves Olya’s full arc in the audit trail — every message is part of the receipt-relevant record.
Receipt as legal artifact. The cryptographic audit trail genuinely matters — disputes happen.
visibility: public for governance: forces higher-quality arguments because owners know reasoning will be on the record.