In a task-democratic body (such as a transition chamber, product council, or neighborhood/village council), a transition agenda is determined, society-wide transition campaigns are realised, and impact is measured. A transition agenda is set in an agenda session. This voting system helps building consensus about what issue to take on next.

https://www.noordenduurzaam.nl/stemsysteem (click ‘Toevoegen’ and select English).

No. Corporatism equals moving away from liberal democracy and putting state power in the hands of ‘corpora’, like labour unions and employer associations. Task democracy is not changing state power but wants to join forces of five task groups, including the state, in joint sustainability transition efforts. In this sense, corporatism replaces liberal democracy, while task democracy enhances liberal democracy.

Furthermore, the historical roots are quite different. Corporatism was a popular model during the interbellum, while task democracy can be seen as a modernisation of a medieval governance model for water management.

PB

The governance model of water authorities in the Netherlands builds on representation of three distinct groups: citizens, famers and nature reserve managers. These groups have a different but fixed numbers of board seats. Group representatives are chosen by their respective constituencies, being the general population, farmer associations and nature reserve organisatons. This governance model has no categeory name. The Dutch water authorities are often refered to as ‘functional democracies’, indicating they exist for a specific function (water management) rather than for general democracy.  
The water board model and task democracy share the concepts of functional groups, fixed seats, and democratic representation. The models are different in administrative power (tax based water management vs voluntary coordination of transition efforts) the number of groups (3 vs 5), the scope of groups (water management interest groups excluding other sectors vs transition task groups including all sectors), the number of group seats (not equal vs equal), and the policy cycle (supervising a government agency vs initiating and monitoring system change).

PB

Mainstream transition theory predicts productive conflict between a declining old pattern and an emerging new pattern. It does not challenge the liberal democratic paradigm, other than proposing improved citizen participation. Task democracy proposes a more radical upgrade of liberal democracy that may reduce transition conflict, by installing negotiation platforms for task groups.
Mainstream transition theory emphasises conflict between upcoming niche solutions for societal problems and declining patterns defended by regime players (e.g, Rotmans, 2021). Over time, the innovation wins and can be consolidated. An example of the application of this theory is the climate case in which Urgenda successfully urged a court ruling that forces the state to do more to combat climate change. 
Paul Frissen sees historicism in this transition thinking, a doctrine of historical necessity. According to him, this leaves no room for other views: 'They are a vanguard that knows the future, points the way to it and does not shy away from coercion, in the form of action and court rulings. They want a new beginning, after which the circle is closed' (Frissen, 2023). 
Task democracy, like transition thinking, starts from scientifically proven sustainability crises, but also takes the plurality of society as a starting point. Task democracy then offers a method of political decision-making for social task division in society wide transition campaigns. This decision-making leaves room for all views and for deliberation. The outcome is not fixed but is constantly redetermined. The right to vote is not distributed equally among all citizens, but among five task groups that need each other and in which citizens are represented in different ways.

PB

Unedited google translation from Dutch original