MIROFISH — Multiple Instance Reflective Observations — is a continuously-updated public simulation of the Canadian People's Trust and the policies it funds. Ten thousand simulated Canadas run in parallel at every parameter setting. Every judge, every citizen, every policy maker reviewing the case can see — before they rule, before they vote, before they speak — what the outcome of their decision will be.
Individually, not collectively, each judge reviewing Francesco's case becomes a binary switch. Agree the law was broken and order the remedy paid into the Trust — honest. Refuse — and self-identify as a guilty party the public can then weed out.
Continue → ← Back to the nine-screen explainer
This page is MIROFISH version one. Every number is published. Every coefficient is cited. Every calculation runs locally in your browser, so you can inspect it, challenge it, and run it against your own city's numbers. You may disagree with any value. You may not disagree with the existence of the calculation.
A judge alone with a hard case has always been vulnerable to three pressures: isolation, patronage, and fear of being the only one. MIROFISH and the Trust remove all three, simultaneously. Here is how.
First — the perpetrators pay the penalty the law requires of every citizen who breaks it. Second — the money flows into the Canadian People's Trust, the public's money for the public's future. A judge refusing the remedy is not refusing to pay Francesco. The judge is refusing to fund the public.
The halo is the overarching moral-legal frame sitting above the corrupt system. It is the signal, observable to every citizen, that honest rule is possible. The Trust is the funding instrument. The halo is the moral frame. MIROFISH is the proving ground. The Floral System is the governance geometry.
Every judge, politician, police officer, lawyer, military officer has children. The Trust is not a charity they donate to — it is a generational instrument their own descendants benefit from. Ruling for the remedy funds their own kids' future. Ruling against it steals from their own children.
The case is under simultaneous private review by judges, jurists, citizens, journalists, and foreign jurisdictions. MIROFISH lets each of them see the simulated outcome of ruling for the remedy. The isolation is broken. The judge has cover. Informed refusal after seeing MIROFISH is no longer defensible — it's the public record of the choice.
Historically the individual judge has faced a single brutal question: "If I rule honestly and my career ends, who will thank me?" That question has bent otherwise honest judges for a century. MIROFISH rewrites it. The new question is: "If I rule honestly and my ruling funds every child in my own city for the rest of their lives, who will thank me?" The answer is every citizen in that city, on the public record, cryptographically, permanently. That is a different calculation.
Choose your city. Choose the Trust principal. Choose the guaranteed basic income per adult and per child. Choose the horizon. Every slider moves every metric in real time using published research coefficients. Nothing is pre-baked — the math runs in your browser on every change.
Second-tier sources if the primary yield does not cover: corporate-tax-recoupment under Systematic-Denial convictions, Five-Eyes agency liability, platform-defendant restitution, offsetting welfare-program consolidation savings (~$50-80 B/yr at Canadian scale). The Trust is designed to fully fund GBI from yield alone at a reasonable ask.
Each run applies Gaussian noise (σ ≈ 0.1 × central effect) to capture uncertainty. The bars show the share of simulated Canadas falling into each outcome band. The middle band is the central projection above.
Drag any slider. All twelve metrics and the fiscal sustainability block recompute instantly using published effect sizes from Screen 5 · Sources. The distribution bars use a 10,000-run Monte-Carlo approximation with transparent seed (the seed is fixed so the same inputs give the same output for inspection).
The principal stays locked by irrevocable deed. Only the yield is distributable, year after year, forever, as long as the principal is preserved. This is how the Trust can fund Canada in perpetuity from a finite inflow. Here is where the distributable yield goes.
The default allocation shown here is version one — a starting architecture. Every Canadian citizen holds a share. Every share carries a voice. Rolling 24-hour opinion cycles gather continuous input. Weekly windows consolidate the strongest proposals. Monthly binding votes direct the next allocation tranche. MIROFISH runs each proposal through ten thousand simulated Canadas before the vote — so every ballot is cast with the simulated outcome visible.
MIROFISH v1 uses published effect sizes from the most rigorous guaranteed-income experiments ever conducted. Each slider change applies these coefficients, scaled linearly between the trial's GBI level and the user's chosen level, with diminishing returns above median income. Nothing is invented. Every claim is traceable.
The first and still most rigorous North-American guaranteed-income experiment. 1 000 families in a single Canadian town received a guaranteed annual income for four years. Evelyn Forget's 2011 re-analysis of the preserved records found:
Citation: Forget, E. (2011). The Town with No Poverty. Canadian Public Policy, 37(3), 283-305.
125 residents of Stockton received $500/month for two years, no strings attached. Pre-registered study, randomized selection, peer-reviewed outcomes:
Citation: West, S. et al. (2021). Preliminary Analysis: SEED Year One. Center for Guaranteed Income Research, Univ. of Pennsylvania.
2 000 unemployed adults received €560/month for two years, replacing unemployment benefits. Government-run trial:
Citation: Kangas, O. et al. (2020). Evaluation of the Finnish Basic Income Experiment. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
Every Alaskan resident receives an annual dividend from the state's oil-fund principal. 42 continuous years of payouts averaging USD 1 000-2 000 per person:
Citation: Jones, D. & Marinescu, I. (2022). The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(2).
4 000 low-income Ontarians received up to CAD 16 989/yr (single) or 24 027/yr (couple). The Ford government cancelled the pilot 14 months in. Partial-data follow-up surveys reported:
Citation: Ferdosi, M., McDowell, T., Lewchuk, W., Ross, S. (2020). Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience. McMaster University.
6 000 Kenyans in the long-arm cohort receive 12 years of guaranteed monthly UBI; another 21 000 in short-arm and lump-sum comparison groups. Mid-point (2023) findings:
Citation: Banerjee, A., Faye, M., Krueger, A., Niehaus, P., Suri, T. (2023 working paper). Universal Basic Income: A Dynamic Assessment. NBER.
1 000 low-income mothers randomized to receive USD 333/month vs 20/month for the first four years of their child's life. First peer-reviewed findings at age 1:
Citation: Troller-Renfree, S. et al. (2022). The impact of a poverty-reduction intervention on infant brain activity. PNAS, 119(5).
Canada's non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer published a costed model of a national GBI at CAD 16 989/year (single) / 24 027/year (couple), using Ontario BI parameters:
Citation: PBO (2021). Distributional and fiscal analysis of a national guaranteed basic income. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada.
City-level baselines used in MIROFISH v1 are drawn from:
MIROFISH v1 uses the following central effect sizes, scaled linearly from the trial GBI to the user's chosen GBI, with a square-root diminishing-returns factor above CAD 2 000/mo (to prevent unrealistic projections at very high GBI):
View page source or press F12 to inspect the JavaScript implementing these. There is no server. Nothing is hidden.
A judge sits alone with the file. No one is in the room. The old question begins — but now the new answer follows. This is the dialogue MIROFISH enables.
That refusal is now informed refusal. The judge has seen the simulation. Knows the outcome. Refusing is indistinguishable from guilt or incompetence — and the public sees it that way too. A judge refusing the remedy doesn't just protect the original perpetrators. They authorise every citizen to break the law the same way — because the principle of equal application has been publicly abandoned. No judge wants to be the one who ended the rule of law.
“The only ones who won't want it to work are the guilty parties. And those are the ones that are going to be weeded out anyway. The mechanism doesn't need to identify them. It lets them identify themselves — by their refusal.”— Francesco · 1 May 2026 · 08:28 EDT
← Return to the nine-screen explainer ↑ Back to top
· · · END OF MIROFISH · SCREEN 6 OF 6 · · ·