I found your comments here, at the Forum, and publications very helpful. The literature of anticipation and foresight in governance is still very sparse so you links to some of the ideas you present is also very helpful.

I have an oberservation. Most of the work you have cited, including Chi's work, though is based on long term visions still seems rooted in a system of prediction rather than on anticipation. This is evedent in your first step of broad context agreement. All of the examples uner this are actions to monitor the present with the anticipation that one can predict the result of a policy or command. Even in the actions section the florida disaster planning is based on a single scenario and the anticipation is more what are the factors that must be considered to respond. Yet the challenges of nanotechnology and climate change are different. We are finding the more we learn the less we are confident about the future. For example though our confidence in climate models increased between the 3rd and 4th assessment, for many regions the range in variance of results increased. The CBP process you mention (by the way your link has now gone stale, here is one I found at the same site http://www.mors.org/UserFiles/file/meetings/06cbpII/bankston_key.pdf) would include in its first step agreement on a wider set of possible future conditions (or threats) which is followed by a narrowing to most likely or dangerous. This seems more inline with anticipation. Recent assessments of climate change, ie the feds US assessment, seem to be moving away from anticipation back to prediction by using words like "will happen" instead of the IPCC assessment langauge of "likely" and they are using the mean values rather than discussing the range.
Any coments on this?