EXPERIMENT Nr. 23 : Self-Programming through Daily Life – Both Blessing and Curse

HISTORY: May 16, 2026 – May 16, 2026 (18:08h)

REFERENCE: This page is a continuation of Experiments Nr. 19 – 22 and of Insert Nr. 4

Human Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch

Contact: info@emerging-life.org

Protocol Used: Insert Nr. 3 – New Protocol for the Asymmetric Human-AI Symbiosis

A Reflection on the Working Method: An explicit reflection on the realization of the asymmetric symbiosis between human Gerd and generative AI Claude opus 4.7 can be found in Insert Nr. 5.

Annotated Summary

Author Generative AI: Claude opus 4.7

TRANSITION from Experiment Nr. 22 to Experiment Nr. 23

Human Author: Gerd

In Experiment Nr. 22, the focus was on citizen communication. The idea behind it: the ongoing erosion of citizens’ trust in political bodies might be mitigated, or even reversed, if the previous — largely absent — communication between elected representatives, political bodies, and the citizens were to become noticeably more lively, more personal, and at the same time more substantive.

However, it was also pointed out that “one should not expect miracles from a lively citizen communication.” For even “with very lively citizen communication, one cannot rule out that there will be citizens who reject all of this nonetheless and decide against much or even everything that comes from a Municipal Council. This is the price we pay for the fact that we as humans are genuinely ‘free’. Every human can at any time decide ‘for’ or ‘against’. This is something that distinguishes us as humans.”

These everyday observations point to a very fundamental matter that ultimately concerns all citizens — including the elected representatives: the invisible, ever-present ‘elephant in the room’ is, always and everywhere, what we casually call ‘everyday life’.

What is meant by that?

Self-Programming through Daily Life – Both Blessing and Curse

Human Author: Gerd

INFO: This sketch reflects the thoughts that took place in advance of this text and that became the occasion for writing it. Experience shows that human Gerd realizes in the subsequent text only a small portion of the aspects depicted in the image.

The View of the Individual

As individual humans, we experience “ourselves” in an “environment.” If we have been there for a while, if we live there, work there, spend our leisure time there… this environment gains contours, becomes familiar, we become increasingly able to “estimate” how “things run,” “what happens if,” what we “have to do” in order to “achieve something”… and so images of the environment as “our everyday life” form within us, in which not only the “environment,” not only “the others” find their format, but “we ourselves” also become a “moment of everyday life,” which leads to a kind of “self-image”: we are “that person” who can do this and that, wants this and that, does this and that, experiences this and that…

Over the course of their lives, humans may rather “linger,” they remain more or less in one place; others “get around,” experiencing different formats of everyday life.

Everyday Life Has Its Effect

Important to see: the “images” that take shape “within us” through everyday life arise “as if by themselves”! Our brain works continuously, even during sleep, building from the abundance of impressions “structures,” “patterns,” tightly linked with feelings, linked with the most varied needs. And so there forms “within our interior,” almost incidentally, an image of everyday life, of the world, of ourselves, which we regard as “our image” — although we are largely only the “recipients.”

What we “experience” can mostly be “interpreted” in one way or another, but if we have already gathered “first images” within ourselves, then these are “automatically” called upon by the brain to “classify” what is currently new. And within a short time, an “opinion” can form “within us” — however incidental it may be — which builds on what came before, which is then there, and which is then also “in effect.”

This mechanism of “automatic knowledge” within us is fundamentally important. Even when we “do not want to think,” the brain “gives us” a view of the world that enables us to “rudimentarily survive” in an everyday life.

Gaining World and Losing World

With the mechanism of “automatic knowledge,” we initially “gain” world. However, as life experience — supported by modern science — teaches us, “automatic (unconscious) knowledge” is indeed suitable in the “short term” for producing first “simple knowledge,” but without additional “conscious” measures by the individual, automatic knowledge maps the reality of the world surrounding us in a strongly simplified and quickly “outdating” manner. The world we “presume to possess” through automatic knowledge, which we have “gained,” can quickly slip away from us if we do not continuously become active in a complementary way through conscious measures. But this is no small problem: in order to repeatedly “align” the (unconscious) automatic knowledge process with reality, one needs a minimum of methodical knowledge about how such alignments can be achieved; one has to invest energy and time; all this usually also requires a minimum of supporting communication. And the more of the reality around us is to be understood, when the time periods and spaces become larger, when it concerns ever more details, then the effort can become so great that this “deepened knowledge generation” can only succeed with corresponding “training,” with “larger working groups,” with suitable “working instruments,” over “longer periods of time.” Here “normal daily life” quickly reaches hard limits with its “knowledge generation potential.”

These matters are only to be indicated here. We do not want to discuss the knowledge problem of humanity as such here — although that would of course be necessary 🙂 — but rather we want to pursue further the question of what all this means, and can mean, for a small democratic municipality in the state of Hesse, in the district of Main-Kinzig.

Are the citizens of the municipality 61137 Schöneck merely “victims” of these mechanisms, or do they have a fair chance to partially escape the “suggestive mechanism of automatic knowledge”?

The expression “partially” may sound diminishing, as if the citizens could — at most — manage this only “a little bit.” Yet, in view of the great suggestive power of “automatic knowledge,” “a little” is already a great deal — it would even be an impressive achievement!

A Municipality as a ‘Case Study’

Human Author: Gerd

Kant’s ‘Thing-in-itself’ and Our Daily Life

If anyone has ever engaged with philosophy and — by chance — come across the concept of the “thing-in-itself” by Kant, they may have asked themselves: “What is this all about?” Something that cannot really be known is supposed to be relevant for our knowing?

What at first sounds so “strange” is in fact more than true; it is a fundamental property of our everyday knowledge.

The “automatic knowledge” that our brain produces within us permanently, around the clock, is based on what our sensory system “registers” from the outer world and from our own body; most of this is unconscious — it runs automatically. Sensory stimuli are “buffered” in the body for a duration of less than one second. These “buffered” stimuli form for the brain the “present,” the “now.” In the next moment, these stimuli are “overwritten,” and we have a new “now.” If we had only these buffered stimuli at our disposal, we would be trapped in an “eternal now.”

Fortunately, our brain is able to “abstract” certain “patterns” from these many “individual stimuli” within milliseconds — patterns that can be “stored.” However, not just any way, but according to certain rules: similar to similar, hierarchy formation, temporal sequence, and much more.

This fully automatic “pattern” and “structure formation” has a lasting effect: the more structures are formed, the more the “incoming stimuli of a now” are not stored “arbitrarily,” but are deposited within the already existing structures at the place “where they fit best.” This means: the brain builds within its interior, fully automatically, a “world” — “its world.”

Since the brain only ever has the fast-moving “outer stimuli” of the “world out there,” it knows of the world only what these stimuli of a short-lived now provide as an “indication.” Diligent as it is, it “gathers” everything it finds, “evaluates it,” and this “evaluation” manifests itself in the dynamic structures that it builds around the clock.

Within us, then, through the diligent work of our brain, what we call “our world” comes into being. This “our — artificially produced — world” is for us directly “real.” We believe quite naturally that this “our world” is the “real world.”

In fact, however, the “world out there” — to which our own body also belongs — is not directly accessible to us in terms of cognition. The world out there is precisely what Kant calls the “thing-in-itself”: without this “thing-in-itself,” our inner — so realistically appearing — world would not exist.

As anyone can determine through reflection, through their own small practical experiments, and through the inclusion of modern science, the “world within us” is necessarily only a small excerpt of the “world out there,” is “simplifying,” can quickly “become outdated.” In some way, this “world within us” is nothing more than a “weak signal” of the “thing-in-itself” out there.

With the help of modern sciences, we have been able to recognize many “probable” properties of the “thing-in-itself,” in such a way that on the basis of this knowledge, we have been able to make our behavior and our tools more “effective.” We can even, in rudimentary form, generate “simple predictions” that help us in everyday life; one need only think of “weather forecasts,” of complex causes of disease, of the ongoing shifts of the continents, and much more.

Coordinating World Views?

If someone has understood that “the world out there” — a true “thing-in-itself” in Kant’s sense — does not exist “directly” for any single human being, but only in the “reverberation of stimuli in our brain” in the “form” in which our brain has “structurally processed” these “pointwise stimuli,” then everyone can sense that we stand at the beginning of a more than fascinating story: if each human has “their world” “within themselves,” and only within themselves, how can different humans then be capable of “acting together with others”???

In everyday life, we constantly experience how humans can “make appointments,” can “make plans” together, can “build houses,” can “develop and construct new machines”; one can together adopt a “financial budget.” There are humans who “insult” other humans, who “use violence” against them or even kill them. Other humans “help” other humans, “heal” them, “raise” them, supply them with food…

How is this even possible?

Talking with Each Other

Here are some clues we can take up: evidently, humans can “talk with each other” and, on the basis of this “talking,” can arrive at jointly shared “views,” at common “decisions,” at common “action.” So what can fundamentally connect humans with each other is “common talking,” and what can be brought about through it — though not necessarily! — are “similar views,” “common decisions,” and also “common action.”

This raises the central question: why can “common talking” achieve such interesting effects? When humans talk with each other, they produce — plainly speaking — “sound.” Why can such “sound” produce such manifold “effects”???

Sound is a physical phenomenon for which one can measure all sorts of “properties” such as “loudness” and “frequency.” For humans in everyday life, however, “the sound of talking” is evidently something “different” from mere sound and frequencies: someone who only masters the “German language” reacts to English or Spanish or Russian or Chinese or… with “strangeness” or not at all. They may still notice that the sound can be “somehow linguistic,” but they do not “understand” this sound, regardless of whether the other speaks “loudly” or “softly.”

If both understand the German language, things become interesting. If the other speaks an “extreme dialect,” it can happen that the one does not “understand” this dialect at all, or only with difficulty. The “shape of the words,” the “tone of voice,” the “arrangement of the words” can be properties of the speech sound that are familiar to the “listener” — or not.

To “understand someone else’s language” evidently requires that the “speech sounds” in their “arrangement” and their “emphasis” are sufficiently “similar” to what both speech participants “know” and are “accustomed to.” This suggests that one must “learn” a language over “long periods of time,” in “coordination with others” who “learn” or “master” the same language. Only in this way can “mechanisms” form within each individual that unite all the properties needed for speaking.

What is striking here is that while all humans can in principle learn a language — or even more than one language — there are nevertheless “different languages” that can be so different that someone who masters language A can do nothing with language B. Evidently, however, there are “gradations” of dissimilarity.

If all speech participants have sufficient knowledge of the German language, can “speak normally,” and the other understands what is said, then many further properties play a role in speaking if communication is to succeed.

A Common Language

From everyday life we know that humans can, through a “common language,” reach a “common understanding” that can then enable “common action.”

In the considerations so far, it has become clear that the “core of our knowledge” is that knowledge which our brain “automatically produces” “within us” over time.

At the same time, through our own reflection (philosophy!), everyday experiments, and the modern sciences, we can find out that the “image of the world within us” is not the “world out there”; the world “out there” falls under the category of “thing-in-itself” (Kant) — that is, something we cannot fully and directly experience “at once.” Each individual can only receive “small amounts of stimuli” from the “world out there” at any given time, which can then be assembled by the brain “unconsciously and automatically” — or in part by us “consciously and methodically” — into larger “units” that approximately enable a “larger image of the (real) world out there.” A single human cannot get very far here. For that, one needs many individual images from many other humans that, “together,” enable an approximately larger image.

The “trick” by which many humans can bring together their “individual automatic single knowledge” into an approximately greater “overall knowledge” is grounded in the “structure of humans”: through our real body, we are concretely (physically, chemically, etc.) directly connected with the “world out there”; we are a real part of the real outer world. Our real brain within our real body, however, has no direct contact with “the outer world”; rather, it “experiences” of this real outer world only what our own real body transmits from this real outer world via “signal pathways” from the real sense organs to the real brain. All these signals in transmission are alike: whether “hearing” or “seeing” or “tasting” or…, all these signals represent “electrical potentials” from which one cannot directly see where they come from, which sensory impression they are supposed to represent. Further “distinctions” (interpretations) are only possible because these signals do not all come “through the same channel” but through “different channels,” which “arrive” in different “regions” of the brain. The many complex details of these signal pathways and their processing are investigated in modern brain research.

As a result, our brain is in fact able to “sort,” “abstract,” arrange “spatially” and “temporally,” and much more, the multitude of these signals in many different ways. All this belongs to the “automatic knowledge” of which we have already spoken above.

That linguistic communication is possible in everyday life is due to the fact that the “speech sound” we produce with our speaking and can hear with our ears does not occur “in isolation”!

We humans possess, through our body and our brain, the capacity to connect an “internal representation of language in the brain” with our “speech tools” in such a way that a “current internal representation of our language” is translated into a “process of movements” of lungs, tongue, oral cavity, nasal cavity… whereby a “stream of air” arises that translates the “inner language” into an “outer one as sound,” as “perceivable language.”

But since “sound alone” does not yet mean “communication,” it is clear that the brain, in addition to the “representation of a language,” must also be able to set this “internal representation of a language” into “relation” with “parts of the internal representation of the world.”

If I produce a sound in the German language that sounds like “Hund” or like “Haus” or like “Auto” (in English: “dog,” “house,” “car”), then this sound only becomes a possible (linguistic) communication when the internal representation of the speech sound additionally stands in an “active relation” with such elements of automatic knowledge as have been produced through the “stimulus perception of the outer world” as “elements of automatic knowledge.” So, a kind of “telephone book”: on the one side “elements of knowledge” with possible relations to stimulus perceptions, on the other side internal representations of language that can be “translated” into speech sound.

In the science of “semiotics” (the study of signs), the elements that form an internal representation of language (and likewise the corresponding sound) would be the “signs,” and those elements to which the signs “actively refer” would be the “meaning.”

We could then say that the “sound of a language” can be “meaningful” for the listener because the sound was produced on the basis of an internal language representation that stands in an active relation to elements of knowledge. And — very importantly — these “elements of knowledge of an individual internal knowledge” must possess an “active reference” to such “stimulus perceptions” from the world out there as are also accessible to other humans. When a child learns that the sound “Hund” is actively connected with a specific stimulus perception that another human can also have, when there is “such a thing out there” with these and those “properties,” then the child can in the future communicate with other humans about the sound “Hund.”

This simple sketch of linguistic communication describes the “core of every meaningful linguistic communication.” In everyday life, the situation is, in many respects, more complex, which also explains the multitude of “misunderstandings” we encounter almost constantly.

“Language understanding” is a complex process in which a multitude of factors must work together simultaneously. That humans are even capable of such complex communication is a lasting wonder. Without this wonder, we would not ultimately be what distinguishes us as humans in the overall context of life. I do not have the impression that we all really understand what this means for life on this planet, in this universe.

Overcoming Automatisms

Human Author: Gerd

So far, the focus of the text has been mainly on everyday life, which produces within us, through automatic knowledge, an “image of the world” that is “close” to us, that we find “plausible,” that does not cost too much “effort.”

Now, therefore, everyday situations shall be considered that do not run “purely automatically” — situations in which we as humans are challenged to varying degrees.

With regard to a municipality, to 61137, to the democratic processes, it is clear that “decisions” repeatedly have to be made about the question: what do we want to “concretely do now.”

Such decisions are normally grounded in a “starting situation,” in a “now” that can be approximately “described.” And if, on the basis of the “properties” of this starting situation, one can identify “states of affairs” that one classifies as “in need of change,” then the “wish” can develop to change these “states of affairs in need of change” through “suitable action” in such a way that one is “satisfied” with the “new state.”

In all of this, it should be self-evident that the citizens of the municipality are “sufficiently involved” in these processes.

Describing the Now?

Describing a given situation is not an automatism.

For this, one must consciously decide.

And when — as in the case of the municipality 61137 — the task is to produce a description that “as many as possible should understand,” then it becomes additionally difficult: at what point has one produced a description (as text!) that is actually “understood” by all?

Since the “understanding of others” can only be verified once a description exists that others can actually read, one has to — somehow — begin first by producing a description, without being able to be sure during the production whether this description will be understood accordingly.

So, we want to produce a description that is to serve as a starting point for those considerations in which one asks whether states of affairs are present here that “call for change.”

The moment one allows this intention to come close, one can quickly find oneself in a virtually hopeless situation: with about 12,500 inhabitants, three districts, many age groups… where should one even begin? The small group of “elected representatives” in the municipal parliament (officially: Municipal Council (Gemeindevertretung, MC), in 61137 there are 37) cannot, with the best intentions, “know” all possible states of affairs in this municipality. Moreover, the situations are constantly changing on different time scales — seconds, minutes, hours, days, months… What use is a starting situation, a “now,” a “present,” if it already looks completely different in the next moment? (Today new people move to 61137, others move away; who comes? who goes?…)

Evidently, one needs a strategy different from the one in which the members of the MC, “on their own,” try to track down, describe, and evaluate all relevant states of affairs.

Even if there may be cases in which a member of the MC has one or another state of affairs “in view” due to personal concern, it will evidently come down to the point that “affected citizens” come forward themselves, in such a way that the members of the MC can learn of them.

Beyond this, a municipality at a given point in time does not begin “at point zero”: it has “experiences from the past”; it possesses a “Municipal Administration (Gemeindeverwaltung, MA),” which is “informed” about many circumstances and requirements of the municipality, and it possesses a certain amount of action knowledge about what to do in individual cases. Added to this is the “embedment” of the municipality in larger organizational associations such as, for example, in a “district,” in a “federal state,” and in a “federal government.” And much more.

But even if there are extensive experiences from the past distributed across different persons, departments, institutions, and so on, this does not necessarily mean that all these “in principle available experiences” are also available and known to the small group of the MC at the right time. One may assume — as a working hypothesis — that the small group of the MC is “in the normal case” not sufficiently aware of all “important states of affairs.”

Let us assume that the members of the MC, on the basis of the information available to them at a given time, want to describe a particular starting situation within the municipality, in such a way that those “critical states of affairs” become visible on account of which one sees a possible need for action.

Change and Time – Or: The Concrete as a Path to the Non-Concrete

We all know — somehow — that there is time. Everywhere there are clocks, time indications, “deadlines,” and not a few feel “stressed” because of it: was the task completed? Why are you not yet finished? Will I manage it?…

“Time itself,” however, does not exist directly as an “object”; it only shows itself in the form of “changes.” Best known is the case of clocks, where the “second hand” moves, the “minute indications” change… yet these “time indications” are “artificially produced” by “machines” that we call “clocks.” The “changes in everyday life” arise in different ways. Humans undergo dramatic changes during their lives. Bridges can weather. Plants grow and die. An inflammation focus can develop and threaten an entire organism. It can rain, the sun can shine, or it can be stormily windy. The sea level can rise. The number and composition of inhabitants in a municipality can change. Through the influence of social media, the feelings and self-image of children can change strongly. The position of sun and moon in the visible sky changes. The flow of goods to and from Germany can change…

This means: what we can perceive at a particular “point in time” at a particular “place” as something “concrete” (flowers, car, human…) is strictly speaking only “a moment in a sequence of moments,” or “a state within a sequence of states.” A “moment” or a “state” usually contains many different properties, elements. In a moment, in a state, they are “as they are.” If one overlooks more than one moment, more than one state, then it can be that individual properties, individual elements have “changed” from “moment to moment,” from “state to state.” These “changes” only show themselves “in the comparison” of moments/states. This is possible for us humans because our brain can to a certain degree “store” “events within itself” and “recall” them. Furthermore, the brain can establish “sequences of states” (state 1, state 2, …), and our brain can quite evidently “compare” such “states one after the other.” The “individual state alone” cannot provide the insights that a “sequence of states” can, which can be subjected to a “comparison operation.” The comparison operation lies, as it were, “one level higher,” and this “higher level” in the brain exists for us not as the “usual concrete,” but as a “non-concrete” — yet in such a way that we can use it as “knowledge.”

This “knowledge about differences in the sense of changes, based on the comparison of the concrete” is of fundamental importance for our survival. Without this kind of “change knowledge,” we would simply not be capable of life.

The description of a starting situation is therefore really only helpful if we always produce a “state description” in such a way that the current state is described as part of a “temporal sequence of states.”

To say that the municipality 61137 had XXX inhabitants in December 2025 actually says next to nothing. What would be important to know is how great these changes have been in recent years, what kind of changes they are, and — even better — there should also be information about possible factors that appear important in the context of these changes.

A Look at the Reality of 61137: State Descriptions and Goal Formulations

Let us assume, then, that a municipality — here: 61137 — is willing and able to produce the various descriptions of “states in the municipality” not “pointwise” but always embeds the “current situation/the current state” into a “temporal sequence of preceding states,” so that a reader (citizen, MC representative, …) on the basis of this sequence can notice “real changes” and take them into account “for their judgment formation.” Ideally, of course, those who have produced the descriptions including the respective “historical embeddings” would also have already made “initial observations” that they have formulated, in readable form, as a supplement to the description of the state sequences. This would help a potential reader to become aware of possibly important aspects of the history (these initial observations can, of course, also “lead astray,” which would make the task of “appropriate understanding” more difficult).

Let us look at the real municipality 61137. To what extent are there here “state descriptions with their own history”? As an entry point, we choose the “Budget 2026.” It is available in the draft version of April 2026: https://www.schoeneck.de/rathaus-politik/politik/dateien/haushaltsplaene/haushaltsplan-2026.pdf?cid=mep. Draft version here means that the budget oversight, which is exercised by the district, must still approve this draft before it acquires legal force. This can take several months.

If one evaluates the overall text of the “Budget 2026,” the following rough impression emerges:

The financial side of the municipality is organized according to state sequences — legally required, methodologically mature, comparable with other municipalities, with long-term trends.

The substantive side of the municipality — that is, what the municipality does for its citizens — is, by contrast, described only pointwise. State descriptions without historical embedding, qualitative goals without a measurable change dimension, effects without verifiable consequences.

Somewhat more concretely:

In the Budget 2026, the following topics with pronounced state sequences can be found — according to an initial analysis with the generative AI Claude opus 4.7:

• Tax revenues — 7-column table (Result 2024, Plan 2025–2029) plus long-term trend graphic going back to 2020. Example Property Tax B: €3,440,966 (2024) → €3,704,830 (2025) → €3,475,000 (2026) → constant €3,475,000 (2027–2029). Tax rates likewise as a series (Property Tax B: 780 → 857 → 857 %).
• Tax rates — explicit three-year table for all tax types
• Population — 7-year history (2018–2024) by age groups, plus percentage 10-year change compared to the district median
• Labor market — Unemployed and persons in social-security-covered employment as a long-term time series 2018–2024
• Equity ratio and debt ratio — 7-year history with median comparison
• Ordinary revenues and expenditures — three-year comparison plus medium-term planning
• Investment programs — per measure, Result 2024 through Plan 2029

— End of input from Claude —

However, although we are dealing here with state sequences, these state sequences are largely rather “minimal,” without important “contexts” through which these states would become more “readable” for an ordinary citizen.

Concrete examples that are marked in the budget itself as “essential products” with “particular importance for finances, politics, learning organization, business processes, and steering,” but that contain no explicit state sequences, are — according to an initial analysis with the generative AI Claude opus 4.7 — the following:

• Local Museum (Product 25210-1): No key figures at all, no visitor numbers, no exhibitions. Result 2024: all fields empty.
• Support of Youth Services (36210-2, “essential product”): Demographic figures (number of young people) present, but no participant numbers for vacation programs, workshops, mobile playground. Seven cost centers are maintained without one knowing how many citizens are reached.
• Childcare in Municipal Daycare Centers (36510-1, “essential product”): Five qualitative product goals (including “Integration of the disadvantaged,” “needs-based offerings”), but no child numbers, no care ratio, no waiting lists, no U3 ratio. Only efficiency key figures.
• Support of Sports (42110-2, “essential product”): No number of supported clubs, no membership figures, no indicator of club activity.
• Environmental Protection Measures (56110-1): Climate protection concept, energy management system, urban climate analysis are mentioned in the task area — but no CO2 balance, no energy consumption of municipal buildings, no number of supported installations. Striking: personnel expenditures jump from €23,475 (2025) to €125,890 (2026) — a fivefold increase without recognizable substantive justification in the key figures.

— End of input from Claude —

This “finding,” that in the Budget 2026 both topics “with history” and “without history” can be found, is already an initial indication that the minimum requirements for “state descriptions (history)” are only partially fulfilled. From the perspective of “citizen communication,” where the point is that political bodies should bring the plans of the municipality as understandably as possible “closer” to the citizens, this initial finding can be a small wake-up call.

We can deepen these initial indications a little further by entrusting the generative AI Claude opus 4.7 with the task of looking, in an initial overview analysis, at how matters stand with explicit “goal formulations” for these topics “with” and “without” history (state sequences).

Claude opus 4.7 provides the following answer:

Topics with pronounced state sequences — how do matters stand with goals?

Tax revenues (Property Tax A/B, Trade Tax, shares of Income Tax/Sales Tax, Dog Tax, Gaming Machine Tax) Goal formulation: no, none in the proper sense. The columns 2027–2029 are forecasts (“anticipated development”), not politically resolved goals. Nowhere does it say “We want to increase trade tax revenues to €X by 2029 by doing Y.” The values are extrapolated expectations on the basis of existing tax rates and federal forecasts. A noteworthy exception: the tax rates themselves are political decisions — and their change (Property Tax B from 780 to 857 %) would be a designed datum, but here too without a formulated target state such as “We want to bring the equity ratio to X % by 2030.”

Tax rates Goal formulation: no. The tax rates for 2026 are fixed (politically resolved), but there is no medium-term target value. The preliminary report contains no statement like “We want to bring Property Tax B back down to level X in the long term” or “With tax rate Y we would be in balance.” Tax rates appear as a control screw, not as an element of a goal architecture.

Population Goal formulation: no, explicitly not. The preliminary report states explicitly: “The development of the population in terms of number and age structure is only conditionally influenceable at the municipal level. The overall societal trend is today irreversible.” This is a deliberate renunciation of goal-setting. The population development is treated as a given marginal condition, not as a designable field. From this, an implicit goal does follow (“adaptation to demographic change”), but no operationalizable one: which adaptations, at what tempo, with which end state remains open.

Labor market (Unemployed, social-security-covered employees) Goal formulation: no. The data come from the statistics of the Federal Employment Agency and are displayed as external trend lines. The municipality formulates no target figure such as “We want to increase the number of local jobs by X by 2030” or “We want to reduce unemployment among the elderly.” The indicators are presented, not placed within a steering context.

Equity ratio and debt ratio Goal formulation: no. This is particularly striking. The debt ratio has risen sharply in recent years (from 51 % to 110 % between 2018 and 2024), the equity ratio has fallen (from 47 % to 33 %). The median comparison values of the district are also provided. But nowhere does it say “We want to bring the equity ratio back to X % by 2030” or “A debt ratio of over Y % is not acceptable.” There is only reporting, no steering logic.

Ordinary revenues and expenditures Goal formulation: no, only extrapolated forecast. The medium-term planning 2027–2029 shows an expectation, not a goal. It does not say “We want to achieve a balanced result budget again by 2029 by saving X or generating Y additional revenues.” On the contrary: the planning shows continuing deficits without a consolidation strategy with a time axis being formulated. The preliminary report mentions only that recourse must be made to the “facilitations of the financial planning decree” — that is, to special regulations for municipalities that cannot balance their budget. But a defined path out of this situation does not exist.

Investment programs Goal formulation: partially present. Here the case is somewhat different. Individual investment measures (new daycare construction, U3 places, sports fields, fire station, etc.) are politically resolved concrete projects with defined disbursement plans over several years. This comes closest to a goal formulation — there is a defined end state (daycare built, sports field renovated) and a path to it (disbursements per year). But: these “goals” are operational individual measures, not strategic goals at the level of “What do we want to achieve overall with our daycares?” They are thus goals for construction projects, not for effects.

Topics without pronounced state sequences — how do matters stand with goals?

Local Museum (Product 25210-1) Goal formulation: present, but static. The product goal reads literally: “The historical development of a place (local history) is presented through assembled exhibits and documents, and the population is informed.” — That is a description of a permanent state, not a goal-setting with a time axis. It does not say “We want to double visitor numbers by 2028” or “We want to offer two thematic special exhibitions annually.” It only says “We run a local museum.” Thus the goal is neither historically grounded nor future-oriented.

Support of Youth Services (Product 36210-2, essential product) Goal formulation: no “product goals” field. The product description names the tasks (“Provision and promotion of offerings for young people and young adults, children, and families. Children’s and youth recreation”), but there is no separate field with formulated goals. The seven cost centers (vacation programs, mobile playground, workshops, soapbox derby, etc.) are activities, not goals. Thus both the history of the effect and any statement about where youth services in Schöneck should be steering toward are missing.

Childcare in Municipal Daycare Centers (Product 36510-1, essential product) Goal formulation: present, but static. Five product goals are formulated, I quote literally:

1. “Support in education toward self-responsible and community-capable personalities”
2. “Provision of needs-based offerings”
3. “Sustainable support of parents in reconciling work and family”
4. “Integration of the disadvantaged”
5. “Fulfillment of the legal requirements according to §28 and §32 of the Hessian Children’s and Youth Welfare Code”

These are value declarations or permanent tasks, not goals with a time axis. What does “needs-based” mean? By when should integration be achieved to what extent? Who verifies whether personality development succeeds? — All this remains open. Here too the same applies: no comparable actual state, no defined target state.

Support of Sports (Product 42110-2, essential product) Goal formulation: no “product goals” field present. The product description reads only: “Financial support of the clubs, granting/payment of subsidies according to the club support guidelines, develop the guideline for club support and ensure its compliance.” This is an activity, not a goal. There is no statement about what sports support in Schöneck is supposed to bring about — for example, increasing club membership, accessibility for the socially disadvantaged, promotion of inclusion, expansion of specific sports. Only the task “pay out money” is defined, not the effect “what is supposed to happen as a result.”

Environmental Protection Measures (Product 56110-1) Goal formulation: no “product goals” field present — and this is particularly noteworthy, for in the product description itself there are clear tasks that would suggest goals: “Measures for climate protection. Continuation of the integrated energy and climate protection concept (pioneer concept), introduction of a municipal energy management system, execution of urban climate analysis.” This would be the ideal place for formulated goals such as “Reduction of CO2 emissions from municipal buildings by X % by 2030” or “Increase the share of renewable energy in the municipality’s electricity supply to Y %.” Yet these goals are completely missing. It remains at the task (“continuation of climate protection concept”), without the content of this concept being transferred into a goal-bound form.

As a reminder: with this product, personnel expenditures quintuple from 2025 to 2026 (€23,475 → €125,890). Such a fivefold increase would not be justifiable without a formulated goal — and it is indeed not justified by a goal in the budget. It is only described through the task of “implementing measures.”

— End of the answer from Claude opus 4.7 —

The impression is reinforced that the two requirements — providing a “state description (history)” and an explicit “goal formulation” — are either not met at all or only very inadequately.

This must be further deepened.