Civic Participation Question Pack
For the method in Using AI in Civic Life Without Outsourcing Your Judgement. Work from primary documents only. Your vote, comment, and position stay genuinely yours.
Not for
Deceptive advocacy, impersonation, mass-produced comments, or targeted persuasion. This pack organizes information for your own judgement — it does not form or submit an opinion for you.
Source record
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Proposal / issue | |
| Primary source (official URL or document) | |
| Document / meeting date | |
| Date retrieved |
Plain-language summary
What is being proposed:
Who it would affect:
What changes if it passes:
Timeline / next step:
Anything unclear or not addressed in the source text:
Stakeholder claims comparison
| Claim | Source (who said it) | Agrees / contradicts another claim | Factual dispute or values disagreement? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ☐ Factual ☐ Values | |||
| ☐ Factual ☐ Values | |||
| ☐ Factual ☐ Values |
Factual disputes verified against a primary source
| Disputed claim | Primary source checked | What it actually says |
|---|---|---|
Questions for the public meeting or comment
My own position (written by you, not generated)
The three prompts to reuse
1. Summarize from the primary text
Here is the text of [proposal / agenda item / measure], copied
directly from [official source]: [paste text]. Summarize in plain
language: what is being proposed, who it would affect, what would
change if it passes, and what the stated timeline or next step is.
Work only from this text — if something is unclear or not addressed
in it, say so rather than filling in a plausible-sounding answer.
2. Compare stakeholder claims
Here are statements from different stakeholders on this issue:
[paste]. Organize these side by side by claim, noting where they
directly contradict each other on a factual point (not a values
disagreement) and where they agree. Do not decide which claim is
correct — flag disputed factual claims as needing verification
against a primary source, and clearly separate factual disagreements
from differences in values or priorities.
3. Draft meeting questions
From this summary and claims comparison [paste], draft 3-4 specific,
answerable questions I could raise at a public meeting or in a
written comment about this proposal. Do not draft a position
statement or comment on my behalf — questions only.