← We The People Platform Download .docx

A Decision Framework for Platform Endpoint Criteria

v1.0 · Created May 7, 2026 for v3.2.9 (decision framework responsive to Tier 1 #1 actionable item identified in Open Issues Registry Section 91) · Jason Robertson · Ohio · 2026

# Purpose

This document defines the explicit endpoint criteria for the We The People Platform across three readiness milestones: ready for academic review, ready to publish, and ready for legislative engagement. It is responsive to the Tier 1 number one actionable item identified in Open Issues Registry Section 91 (the 'what does done look like' decision document). Without explicit criteria, the platform's iteration cycle has no defined exit; with explicit criteria, each iteration can be evaluated against progress toward the criteria and the platform can be declared ready when the criteria are satisfied. This document establishes those criteria, identifies which are already satisfied, identifies which remain, and recommends a sequence.

This document is itself a decision artifact, not a definitive plan. The criteria reflect the lead author's current best judgment about what readiness means at each milestone given the constraints declared below. External feedback during academic review engagement and publication preparation may reveal that the criteria require revision; the document anticipates that and treats itself as the first iteration of a decision framework that will mature through use.

# Constraint Declarations

Three constraint declarations shape what is achievable across the three milestones. Each is a deliberate choice by the lead author and could change in future iterations of this document; the criteria below assume these constraints hold.

## Constraint One: Optimization Tier

The platform is optimizing for Tier One (citable reference work) and Tier Two (institutional infrastructure) as defined in the lead author's analytical thinking. Tier One means the platform exists publicly as a serious, searchable, citable analytical contribution. Tier Two means the platform has institutional pathways for review, refinement, and component adoption (commissioned audits; credentialed scholar engagement; component pickup by advocacy organizations whose missions align with specific pillars). Tier Three (trade book publication; congressional sponsorship of component legislation) and Tier Four (federal legislation introduced and moved) are aspirational future targets, not current optimization targets. The criteria in this document are calibrated for Tier One and Tier Two readiness; Tier Three and Tier Four readiness is a different and longer document.

## Constraint Two: Resource Envelope

The lead author is committed to investing time and money to advance the platform through Tier One and Tier Two milestones. Specific time commitments and dollar budgets are not declared in this version of the document; placeholder budgets are noted at each milestone where money is materially required and the lead author can fill in actual values as commitments solidify. Resource constraints will affect sequencing (which milestones get attention first) and may affect which optional artifacts get pursued (e.g., whether commissioned polling on platform components is in or out of scope). The placeholder convention used throughout: cost ranges are given in approximate orders of magnitude (a few hundred dollars; a few thousand; tens of thousands; a hundred thousand or more); the lead author specifies actual commitments separately.

## Constraint Three: Author Strategy

The lead author remains the sole author of the platform for now. This is a deliberate choice with consequences: the platform cannot transfer credibility through credentialed co-authorship; the platform cannot be fronted by a credentialed institution that would re-brand it. The credibility-transfer paths that remain available are credentialed third-party endorsement (where credentialed scholars publicly engage with the platform without becoming authors), commissioned third-party validation (audits and reviews where the third party validates the work without taking authorship), institutional adoption of components (where advocacy organizations or think tanks adopt specific pillars or mechanisms without adopting the whole platform), and accumulation of public legitimacy through direct discourse (op-eds, podcast appearances, public engagement). The constraint applies for now; it may relax in future iterations of this document if the lead author's circumstances change.

# The Three Milestones

Three milestones structure the path forward. The milestones are not strictly sequential; some criteria across milestones can advance in parallel, while others gate later milestones on earlier ones. The relationships are described under each milestone.

Milestone A is ready for academic review. The platform can be sent to credentialed scholars for substantive engagement without the lead author or the platform suffering reputational damage. This is achievable in the relatively near term given current platform state. Milestone B is ready to publish, which is split into three sub-meanings (self-publication as searchable reference work; long-form magazine article placement; trade press book publication) with very different criteria for each. Milestone C is ready for legislative engagement, which is split into five sub-meanings of progressively higher criteria (citable reference work; component-level adoption; advocacy organization adoption; bill text drafting; public-facing campaign). Within Tier One and Tier Two optimization, the platform targets sub-meanings B1, B3, C1, C2, and C3; sub-meanings B2, C4, and C5 are deferred to future iterations of this framework.

# Milestone A: Ready for Academic Review

Definition: the platform is in a state where it can be sent to credentialed scholars for substantive engagement without embarrassment. The reviewer reads the work, finds it rigorous, finds the methodological honesty refreshing, and engages substantively with content rather than dismissing the work for lack of rigor or polish.

## Milestone A Criteria

Required artifacts and platform states. First: every Open Issues Registry RESEARCH item (RESEARCH-1 through RESEARCH-8) has at least one credentialed reviewer engagement initiated; the engagement has materials sent and a response cadence established. The reviewer does not need to have completed a substantive review to satisfy this criterion; engagement initiation is sufficient. Second: every PERSONA-SIG item requiring specialist expertise (PERSONA-SIG-3 healthcare rate-setting; PERSONA-SIG-4 constitutional law; PERSONA-SIG-5 sovereign-fund management) has at least one specialist engagement initiated. Third: PROCESS-3 (Combined Reform Model audit) has an active engagement with a credentialed audit firm or independent auditor; the audit does not need to be complete, but it must be in progress with scope agreed and work begun.

Fourth: the platform's lead-author non-credentialing transparency is maintained explicitly in the master document, the engagement materials, and the README; reviewers see the disclosure before they engage. Fifth: the External Engagement Plan and Academic Outreach Letter Templates are at production-ready state (no draft markers, no [item topic] placeholders that have not been customized for actual outreach). Sixth: a commissioned-review version of the Combined Reform Model is published in a format that allows reviewers to inspect inputs, outputs, formulas, and assumptions; this may be the existing xlsx file plus a structured methodology document, or it may require additional work. Seventh: the master We The People Platform document has been read end-to-end by at least three trusted readers (not as peer review; as accessibility check) and any clarity or coherence issues they surfaced have been addressed. Trusted readers do not need to be credentialed; they need to be honest and engaged.

## What Milestone A Enables

When all seven criteria are satisfied, the platform is in a state where the lead author can confidently send academic outreach letters to the engagement targets identified in the External Engagement Plan, send the audit RFP to credentialed firms, and respond to substantive feedback through subsequent platform iterations. Reviewers will encounter a serious, internally consistent, methodologically honest analytical platform with explicit acknowledgment of its limits and an active path to credentialed validation.

## What Milestone A Does Not Require

Milestone A does not require completed peer review, completed audit, completed constitutional review, or affiliation with any credentialed institution. It does not require co-authorship. It does not require the lead author to have credentials they do not have. It does not require the platform to be free of acknowledged limits; on the contrary, the explicit acknowledgment of limits through the Open Issues Registry is part of what makes the platform reviewable in good faith.

## Milestone A Resource Envelope

Time costs: substantial. Drafting customized outreach letters for each engagement target (twelve OPEN items plus possible additional outreach), responding to acknowledgments, scheduling and conducting initial conversations, and preparing review materials for each engagement requires sustained attention over weeks to months. Money costs: low for outreach itself, but the audit engagement (PROCESS-3) typically costs in the range of tens of thousands of dollars to a hundred thousand or more depending on scope. Polling on platform components, if pursued as part of Milestone A or B preparation, costs in the tens of thousands. People costs: outreach to credentialed scholars; possible engagement of a research assistant or editor for the trusted-reader review pass.

# Milestone B: Ready to Publish

Definition: the platform exists in a publicly accessible, citable, durable form. This breaks into three sub-meanings (B1 self-publication as searchable reference work; B2 trade press book publication; B3 long-form magazine article placement) with very different criteria. Within the optimization tier, B1 and B3 are in scope; B2 is deferred.

## Milestone B1: Self-Publication as Searchable Reference Work

Definition: the platform is published on a public-facing website with a permanent domain, is discoverable through standard web search, has a citation handle (DOI or similar permanent identifier), is durably archived, and presents itself as a serious analytical contribution rather than a personal blog post. A Congressional staffer researching universal healthcare or sovereign funds in 2026 or 2027 finds the platform via search engine, can navigate the package, can cite specific sections by version and permalink, and encounters a professional presentation.

Required artifacts. First: a domain name registered for the platform (separate from the lead author's personal domains and from General Admission, LLC). Second: a hosting environment that supports the GUI navigator (the platform_index.html plus catalog files) plus the ability to download or browse the package contents. Third: a permanent archival deposit, ideally in a location that issues citation handles; Zenodo (the CERN-hosted research archive) issues DOIs for deposited materials and is free for non-commercial use; the Internet Archive provides durable web archival; both can be used in parallel. Fourth: a citation page providing structured citation metadata in multiple formats (BibTeX, RIS, APA, Chicago) so that academic readers can cite the platform in their own work. Fifth: a lead-author bio and disclosure page that maintains the non-credentialing transparency. Sixth: a contact mechanism for engagement; an email or web form is sufficient. Seventh: a clear license declaration; the platform is the lead author's intellectual property and a license should be explicit (e.g., Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, or another license that supports the lead author's intent regarding adoption and modification).

What Milestone B1 enables. Sub-meaning C1 of legislative engagement (citable reference work) is satisfied at the same time as B1. The platform becomes discoverable, citable, and durable. Anyone who finds it can read it, navigate it, download it, and cite it. The platform's existence becomes a public fact rather than a private project.

Milestone B1 resource envelope. Time costs: moderate. Domain registration, hosting setup, archival deposit, and citation page construction is feasible work for the lead author over a small number of weeks. Money costs: low (domain registration is approximately fifteen to thirty dollars a year; basic hosting is approximately ten to thirty dollars a month; Zenodo deposit is free; Internet Archive is free). People costs: low; mostly the lead author's own time, possibly with technical assistance for the hosting and archival setup.

## Milestone B2: Trade Press Book Publication

Definition: a major commercial publisher (or a serious independent publisher) issues a book based on the platform under the lead author's name. This is the path of works like The Two-Income Trap, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Evicted, and similar policy-shaping books; substantively comparable, not necessarily identical in form.

Required artifacts and processes (much harder than B1). Literary agent representation (querying agents, sample chapters, book proposal). Book proposal that includes market analysis, comparable titles, author platform, sample chapters, and sales projection. Publisher contract following agent placement. Editorial revision cycles, typically substantial; trade press editors will require accessibility revisions that academic-format prose does not require. Marketing infrastructure provided partly by publisher and partly by author. Pre-publication author platform building (reviews, blurbs, advance reading copies).

Why Milestone B2 is deferred. The author-strategy constraint (lead author as sole author for now) plus the lead-author non-credentialing constraint together make trade press placement structurally difficult; trade publishers will ask 'why this author' as a gating question, and the honest answer (this author is a non-credentialed analyst with deep platform-level work) is harder to sell to publishers than 'this author has institutional standing'. The path can become realistic if Milestone A engagement produces credentialed endorsements or co-author opportunities (which would relax the third constraint), or if Milestone B1 produces sufficient public traction to provide the author platform that publishers seek. Rather than treat B2 as a near-term target, this document treats B2 as a possible eventual outcome that depends on what happens during A and B1 and B3.

## Milestone B3: Long-Form Magazine Article Placement

Definition: an article based on the platform (or on a specific element of it) is placed in a serious general-readership magazine or long-form online outlet. Examples of target outlets: The Atlantic, The New Republic, National Affairs, Boston Review, The Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, City Journal (for center-right alternative framing), and online outlets including Vox feature articles, Slate long-form, Yale Books unbound, and similar.

Required artifacts. First: a pitch document tailored to the specific outlet (different outlets accept different framings; The Atlantic accepts narrative-driven policy framing while National Affairs accepts more analytical framing). Second: a hook or news angle that makes the article timely (a current policy debate, a recent event, an anniversary). Third: a sample of the lead author's writing in accessible voice; the master We The People Platform document is partly suitable, but a magazine article requires shorter, more accessible prose. Fourth: an editor relationship if possible; warm intros from someone the editor knows are dramatically more likely to result in placement than cold pitches. Fifth: openness to substantial editorial revision; magazine editors will rewrite sections, and the author's name still goes on the result.

Milestone B3 resource envelope. Time costs: substantial (writing a publishable article is itself a project; revising through editorial feedback adds more). Money costs: low (the lead author is paid by the outlet, not the reverse). People costs: requires identifying and engaging editors; possibly requires identifying introducers.

# Milestone C: Ready for Legislative Engagement

Definition: the platform can be cited, components can be borrowed, advocacy organizations can adopt elements, and (eventually) elements can be drafted into bill text and pushed through legislative process. This is split into five sub-meanings of progressively higher criteria. Within the current optimization tier, sub-meanings C1, C2, and C3 are in scope; C4 (bill text drafting) and C5 (public-facing campaign) are deferred.

## Milestone C1: Citable Reference Work

Definition: the platform exists in a form where Congressional staff, advocacy organization staff, journalists, academics, and other policy practitioners can find it, read it, and cite it. C1 is satisfied automatically when Milestone B1 is satisfied; the criteria are identical.

## Milestone C2: Component-Level Adoption Readiness

Definition: each pillar of the platform exists as a self-contained, modular component that can be borrowed independently of the others. An advocacy organization or legislator interested in universal childcare can pick up Pillar Five (Universal Childcare) without adopting the whole platform; an organization interested in sovereign fund mechanisms can pick up the sovereign fund architecture from Pillar One without adopting the rest. The platform's component-level documents already mostly satisfy this; C2 readiness requires confirming that each pillar's contribution rate, benefit specification, transition plan, and implementation guidance are independently usable.

Required artifacts. First: each pillar has a standalone substantiation document; this is mostly already done (Universal Mental Health Access Substantiation, Universal Broadband Access Substantiation, Civic Infrastructure Architectural Framing, etc.). Second: each pillar's contribution rate is documented as canonical (currently in the Open Issues Registry under OPEN-1 and detailed in pillar-specific documents). Third: each pillar's benefit specification is documented (what does the pillar deliver, to whom, on what cadence). Fourth: each pillar has a brief 'how to borrow this independently' note explaining which other platform elements it depends on and which it does not. Fifth: each pillar has a contact path for engagement (currently the platform-wide contact path in the master document; could be pillar-specific if engagement scales).

Milestone C2 resource envelope. Time costs: modest; mostly verifying that existing documents satisfy the criteria and adding the brief 'borrow independently' notes where missing. Money costs: low. People costs: low.

## Milestone C3: Advocacy Organization Adoption

Definition: at least one advocacy organization (501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)) adopts at least one component of the platform as part of its policy agenda; the organization names the platform or component as the source. Examples of plausible target organizations: for childcare, the National Women's Law Center, the Center for American Progress, MomsRising; for healthcare, Public Citizen, the Medicare for All movement organizations; for sovereign funds, the Roosevelt Institute, the Center for Economic and Policy Research; for civic infrastructure, public-sector unions and infrastructure-focused think tanks; for paid family leave, A Better Balance, the National Partnership for Women and Families; for the wage floor architecture, possibly the Roosevelt Institute or the Niskanen Center (the latter for the center-right framing of wage floors as alternative to mandate).

Required artifacts. First: the platform has been published in B1 form (so organizations can find and cite it). Second: customized outreach materials for each target organization explaining which components might align with that organization's mission and how the organization could engage. Third: openness to component adaptation; advocacy organizations will modify the components to fit their own framing, advocacy strategy, and donor base; the lead author should be willing to support adaptation rather than insist on platform-wide adoption.

Milestone C3 resource envelope. Time costs: substantial (drafting customized outreach materials for each organization; conducting outreach conversations; supporting organizations that engage). Money costs: low to moderate. People costs: requires the lead author's sustained attention; if engagement scales, may eventually require partnerships or organizational support that could conflict with the third constraint.

## Milestone C4: Bill Text Drafting

Definition: legislative counsel (House Legislative Counsel, Senate Legislative Counsel, or state-level equivalents) drafts actual legislative text from a platform component or from the platform as a whole. This requires every implementation question to be resolved at a level of specificity that the platform does not currently target; the platform is architecture, while bill text is implementation.

Why C4 is deferred. Bill text drafting requires a member of Congress willing to introduce, completed constitutional review, completed fiscal scoring (a CBO score or proxy from Penn Wharton Budget Model or Yale Budget Lab), legal review by tax law and healthcare law specialists for the platform-component being drafted, and in some cases, formal lobbying registration (depending on activity level). Each of these is feasible but multi-year work that depends on Tier Three or Tier Four resources beyond the current envelope. The platform should note when (and if) these become realistic and not pretend the criteria are achievable in current state.

## Milestone C5: Public-Facing Legislative Campaign

Definition: a coordinated communications, mobilization, and lobbying effort to advance platform components through legislative process. Includes coalition building, donor base, communications infrastructure, paid staff, and political timing strategy.

Why C5 is deferred. C5 typically requires a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization, multiple full-time staff, multi-million-dollar annual budget, and political-strategy expertise. This is structurally beyond the current envelope and beyond the third constraint. The platform should note that C5 readiness is a separate decision, not an extension of the current trajectory; if the lead author wishes to move toward C5 readiness, that decision triggers a re-examination of the constraint declarations rather than continuing along the current path.

# What Is Already Done That Supports Each Milestone

An inventory of the current platform state shows that substantial progress toward Milestone A criteria is already complete; partial progress toward Milestone B criteria; and partial progress toward Milestone C criteria. The remaining gaps are identifiable and actionable.

## Milestone A Progress

Substantially complete. The Open Issues Registry's twelve OPEN items have documented response frameworks (Sections 52, 89, 91 of the Registry). The External Engagement Plan and Academic Outreach Letter Templates exist (created in v3.1.11 and v3.2.2 respectively). The Combined Reform Model Audit Scope exists (created in v3.2.2) as the audit RFP. The Tribal Consultation Framework and Briefing Document exist (created in v3.2.2 and v3.2.3). The Comprehensive Verification Report (v3.2.7) and Sources and Derivation Convention (v3.2.8) document the platform's internal rigor. The lead-author non-credentialing transparency is maintained throughout. What remains: actually initiating the engagements (sending the letters; commissioning the audit; initiating tribal consultation); conducting the trusted-reader review pass; producing the commissioned-review version of the Combined Reform Model in a methodology-documentation form.

## Milestone B1 Progress

Partial. The platform package exists in clean shippable form (v3.2.8). The GUI navigator exists (platform_index.html and catalog). What remains: domain registration; hosting setup; permanent archival deposit (Zenodo or equivalent); citation metadata page; lead-author bio and disclosure page on the public-facing site; license declaration; contact mechanism integration.

## Milestone B3 Progress

Minimal. The platform contains substantial analytical content that could be excerpted or adapted for magazine article form, but no specific article exists. What remains: identifying target outlets; drafting pitches; writing sample article(s) in accessible long-form magazine voice; identifying editor relationships.

## Milestone C1 Progress

Same as Milestone B1; satisfied when B1 is satisfied.

## Milestone C2 Progress

Substantially complete. Each of the eight pillars has a substantiation or framing document. Contribution rates are canonicalized in the Open Issues Registry (OPEN-1) and detailed in pillar-specific documents. Benefit specifications are documented. What remains: brief 'borrow independently' notes for each pillar explaining which other platform elements it depends on and which it does not.

## Milestone C3 Progress

Minimal. No advocacy organization outreach has occurred. Customized outreach materials for target organizations have not been drafted. What remains: drafting customized outreach materials for the highest-priority advocacy organizations; conducting outreach; supporting any organization that engages.

# Recommended Sequencing

The criteria across milestones can be partially advanced in parallel and partially gated. The recommended sequence below assumes the constraint declarations hold and assumes the lead author's attention can be focused for sustained periods on the work.

Sequence step one: complete Milestone A preparation. Add the brief 'borrow independently' notes that satisfy Milestone C2's remaining gap. Conduct the trusted-reader review pass on the master We The People Platform document. Produce the commissioned-review version of the Combined Reform Model methodology documentation. This is internal work that does not require external engagement and can be completed by the lead author in iterations following this document.

Sequence step two: execute Milestone A engagement. Send academic outreach letters using the Academic Outreach Letter Templates, customized for each engagement target. Issue the audit RFP using the Combined Reform Model Audit Scope. Initiate tribal consultation per the Tribal Consultation Framework. This is external work; the lead author's role is initiation and response cadence rather than completion. Engagements may take months; the platform's iteration cycle continues in parallel.

Sequence step three: execute Milestone B1 publication. Register domain. Set up hosting. Deposit to Zenodo and Internet Archive. Build citation metadata page. Add lead-author bio and disclosure. Declare license. This is parallelizable with step two.

Sequence step four: respond to early engagement feedback. Reviewers will surface analytical issues, methodological concerns, or framing recommendations. The platform's iteration cycle (the four-phase cycle that produced v3.2.x) handles this through future iterations.

Sequence step five: assess Milestone C3 readiness based on Milestone A and Milestone B1 outcomes. If credentialed reviewers have engaged, if the platform is published in B1 form, and if external traction is observable, draft customized outreach to advocacy organizations. If traction is limited, focus on accumulating public legitimacy through Milestone B3 (long-form articles) before C3 outreach.

Sequence step six: revisit this decision document. The criteria above reflect the lead author's current best judgment at v3.2.9; external feedback will likely surface refinements. The first refinement iteration should occur after Milestone A engagement is initiated but before Milestone C3 outreach is initiated, so the document benefits from real engagement experience without being so far into the C3 work that revisions disrupt active outreach.

# What This Document Does Not Cover

This document does not specify the resource budgets for each milestone; the lead author specifies actual time and money commitments separately. This document does not specify timeline targets for each milestone; the constraint declarations do not include a target completion date and the document deliberately avoids implying one. This document does not address Tier Three or Tier Four readiness (trade book publication; congressional sponsorship; federal legislation introduction; multi-year political campaign); those would be a separate decision document if the lead author chooses to optimize for them. This document does not commit the platform to any specific external engagement or publication path; the criteria define readiness, not action. The decision to actually execute (sending letters; commissioning audits; registering domains; drafting articles) is a separate decision that follows from this readiness framework.

# Acknowledged Limits

First: this document is the lead author's first attempt at endpoint criteria. External engagement will likely reveal that some criteria are over-specified (require artifacts that do not actually matter for the milestone) and others are under-specified (omit artifacts that matter). The document treats itself as a starting point, not a final answer.

Second: the constraint declarations may relax over time. If the lead author becomes credentialed (through advanced study; through institutional affiliation; through credentialed co-authorship), the third constraint relaxes and several otherwise-deferred milestones become more achievable. If resource commitments grow (through grant funding, donor support, organizational formation), the second constraint relaxes and Tier Three criteria become available. Future iterations of this document should re-examine the constraint declarations as part of any revision.

Third: this document does not validate the platform's empirical defensibility. It assumes the platform's substantive analytical content is approximately correct, and asks what additional artifacts and processes are needed to make it externally legitimate. If the platform's substantive content is found wanting through external engagement, the criteria above are not the issue; the platform's content is. The Sources and Derivation Convention (v3.2.8) and the Open Issues Registry's RESEARCH and PERSONA-SIG tracking are the platform's honest acknowledgment that substantive validation is itself an open question.

# Cross-References

This document is responsive to the Tier 1 number one actionable item identified in Open Issues Registry Section 91 (the 'what does done look like' decision document). It references the External Engagement Plan (Section 52 of the Open Issues Registry; document 05_External_Engagement_Plan.docx) and the Academic Outreach Letter Templates (created in v3.2.2; document 05_Academic_Outreach_Letter_Templates.docx) for the engagement infrastructure that satisfies Milestone A. It references the Combined Reform Model Audit Scope (created in v3.2.2; document 05_Combined_Reform_Model_Audit_Scope.docx) for PROCESS-3 audit engagement. It references the Tribal Consultation Framework and Briefing Document (created in v3.2.2 and v3.2.3) for ITEM79-Q3 engagement. It references the Comprehensive Verification Report (v3.2.7) and the Sources and Derivation Convention (v3.2.8) as the platform's internal-rigor documentation. The Open Issues Registry's twelve OPEN items (RESEARCH-1 through RESEARCH-8 plus PROCESS-3, ITEM79-Q3, PERSONA-SIG-3, PERSONA-SIG-4, PERSONA-SIG-5) are the substantive content of Milestone A engagement.