# Civic Participation Question Pack

For the method in
[Using AI in Civic Life Without Outsourcing Your Judgement](/articles/ai-for-civic-community-participation).
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

1.
2.
3.
4.

## My own position (written by you, not generated)

## The three prompts to reuse

**1. Summarize from the primary text**

```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**

```text
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**

```text
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.
```