← We The People Platform Download .docx

Findings from Five Persona Reading-Path Simulations Executed for v3.1.0

v1.0 · Created May 6, 2026 for v3.1.0 (initial five-persona simulation execution per Standard Persona Simulation Prompt in Item 80; addresses deferred work item from v2.30.41 covering personas P2 through P6). · Author: Jason Robertson, Ohio.

This document records persona-based reading-path simulation findings for personas P2 through P6, executed per the Standard Persona Simulation Prompt documented in Item 80. P1 (Skeptic) was previously executed in v2.30.41. Each simulation reads the platform from the persona's perspective and surfaces friction points the persona would experience. Findings are not duplicates of already-documented Open Issues Registry entries; they represent reading-experience observations specific to each persona.

# P2: Policy Professional

Persona simulated: Policy professional with a degree in public finance evaluating analytical adequacy. Reading path executed: Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis, Wage Floors as Tax Architecture (concept analysis document), Coalition Walkthrough, Open Issues Registry. Concerns active throughout: methodology rigor, peer-nation comparison, acknowledgment of limitations.

## P2 Findings

MIN, METHODOLOGY-OPACITY, Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis. The headline fiscal figures are now sourced (per v2.30.42) but the methodology by which projections were constructed remains compactly described. A policy professional would expect a methodology section walking through assumptions, sensitivity analysis, and key parameter sources at the level of a working paper appendix. The current treatment is closer to a policy brief than a working paper. The OIR honestly acknowledges this (PROCESS-3, mathematical models not independently audited), which partially mitigates the friction — but the friction remains for the persona reading FFIA in isolation.

MIN, PEER-NATION-COMPARISON-MISSING, Wage Floors as Tax Architecture. The wage floor concept analysis would benefit from explicit comparison to peer-nation policies (UK National Living Wage, Australia Fair Work Commission, Germany Mindestlohn). The platform's approach is presented as design choice rather than as positioned within an international comparative landscape. A policy professional reading this document would want to know how the platform's choices map onto known international approaches and what evidence informs the divergences.

OBS, LIMITATIONS-ACKNOWLEDGMENT-STRONG, Open Issues Registry. The OIR is a positive surprise from this persona's perspective. Many policy documents bury or omit acknowledgment of analytical limitations; this platform tracks them in a registry with formal status semantics. The two-column Mitigated and Issue Status framework is the kind of discipline a policy professional would expect from a research institution and would note as evidence that the platform takes analytical responsibility seriously.

MIN, COALITION-WALKTHROUGH-NARRATIVE, Coalition Walkthrough. The coalition walkthrough document is structured around demographic groups and platform impact rather than around political-economy coalitional logic. A policy professional would expect coalitional analysis to address questions about which interests would gain or lose, how the coalition would form and hold, and what veto points the platform should expect. The current treatment is informational rather than strategic.

Overall assessment for P2. The platform engages the policy professional well at the level of analytical honesty (OIR discipline), with friction primarily around methodology depth and comparative framing rather than around analytical claims themselves. A policy professional would not dismiss the platform after this reading path; they would likely categorize it as an unusually rigorous policy brief from a non-academic source, with caveats about specialist review still being needed. Highest-priority finding: methodology-opacity in FFIA, which is the document most likely to be examined first by this persona.

# P3: Telecommunications Industry Professional

Persona simulated: Reader from a telecom carrier or tower REIT evaluating infrastructure proposals. Reading path executed: Federal Infrastructure Fee, Federal Infrastructure Fee Transition Mechanics, Universal Broadband Access Substantiation. Concerns active: regulatory treatment, transition mechanics, pass-through prevention.

## P3 Findings

SIG, REGULATORY-TREATMENT-INCOMPLETE, Federal Infrastructure Fee. The FIF document describes the fee architecture but does not specify how the fee interacts with existing FCC regulatory authority, state public utility commission jurisdiction, and the existing Universal Service Fund contribution mechanism. A telecom industry professional would identify this as a critical structural question: is FIF additive to USF, replacing USF, or functionally separate? The document treats this implicitly rather than explicitly. Without clarification, the carrier cannot evaluate the fee's actual financial impact.

MIN, PASS-THROUGH-PREVENTION-MECHANISMS, Federal Infrastructure Fee. The document mentions pass-through prevention but does not detail the enforcement mechanism (FCC rule? state PUC oversight? statutory language?). Industry professionals would want specificity here because pass-through prevention without enforcement teeth is the kind of policy language that does not survive industry pricing pressure. The platform's position would be more credible with explicit enforcement architecture.

MIN, TRANSITION-TIMELINE-OPAQUE, Federal Infrastructure Fee Transition Mechanics. The transition mechanics document describes phases but does not specify trigger conditions for phase transitions or contingency treatment if transition assumptions prove wrong. A carrier evaluating this would want to know what happens if subscriber migration runs faster or slower than projected, and what the platform's position is on stranded asset treatment for legacy infrastructure investments.

OBS, BROADBAND-SUBSTANTIATION-COMPREHENSIVE, Universal Broadband Access Substantiation. The substantiation document is more comprehensive than the persona expected from a non-industry source. Coverage of rural deployment economics, last-mile cost structures, and middle-mile considerations matches the kind of analysis carriers would want to see before engaging substantively. The persona notes this as a positive surprise.

Overall assessment for P3. The persona would find the platform's broadband substantiation credible but the FIF regulatory architecture underspecified. The highest-priority finding is the regulatory treatment incompleteness, which would be the first question the persona's regulatory affairs team would raise. The platform would benefit from a supplementary document specifically addressing FIF's interaction with existing regulatory architecture before substantive industry engagement. Without that, the persona is likely to defer engagement rather than dismiss outright.

# P4: Tribal Infrastructure Officer

Persona simulated: Reader from a tribal nation government evaluating sovereignty implications. Reading path executed: Emergency Services Communications, Federal Infrastructure Fee, Item 79's tribal nation lands subsection. Concerns active: sovereignty preservation, consultation requirements, public-purpose exemption applicability.

## P4 Findings

SIG, SOVEREIGNTY-LANGUAGE-INSUFFICIENT, Federal Infrastructure Fee. The FIF document references tribal lands but does not use the language of government-to-government consultation that tribal infrastructure officers expect from federal-level policy proposals. The Item 79 tribal nation lands subsection partially addresses this (documenting the platform's current handling per ITEM79-Q3) but the primary FIF document should reference the consultation framework rather than treating tribal lands as an exception parameter.

MIN, CONSULTATION-PROTOCOL-MISSING, Emergency Services Communications. The emergency services communications document describes infrastructure deployment without specifying tribal consultation protocols for tribal-jurisdiction emergency communications infrastructure. Tribal officers would expect explicit acknowledgment of tribal authority over emergency communications on tribal lands, with consultation processes for federal infrastructure that touches tribal jurisdiction.

MIN, PUBLIC-PURPOSE-EXEMPTION-AMBIGUOUS, Federal Infrastructure Fee. The public-purpose exemption is described in general terms but its applicability to tribal government infrastructure is unclear. Would tribal-government-owned infrastructure qualify? Would tribal-enterprise-owned infrastructure qualify? Tribal officers would want this clarified before recommending engagement.

OBS, ITEM79-DOCUMENTATION-PRESENT, Item 79 tribal nation lands subsection. The persona notes that the platform did document its current handling of the tribal nation lands question, which is more than most federal-level proposals do. This documentation is positive but would benefit from explicit framing that the documented handling is the platform's position pending tribal consultation rather than a settled answer.

Overall assessment for P4. The persona would find the platform's willingness to document its position on tribal questions positive but the substantive treatment of sovereignty insufficient. Highest-priority finding is the sovereignty-language gap in the primary FIF document. The persona would recommend deferring engagement until the platform engages tribal consultation explicitly, which is itself a fair finding rather than a dismissal.

# P5: Small Business Owner

Persona simulated: Small business owner trying to understand platform impact on their business. Reading path executed: Calculator (business-side), Federal Infrastructure Fee (worked examples), What This Means For You (small business section). Concerns active: total fee burden, exemption eligibility, transition timeline.

## P5 Findings

MIN, CALCULATOR-DECISION-FATIGUE, Calculator (business-side). The calculator's business-side modeling is comprehensive but presents many input fields without clear guidance on which inputs matter most for small businesses specifically. A small business owner with limited time would benefit from a small-business-specific quick-start path that uses sensible defaults for inputs unlikely to materially change the result.

MIN, EXEMPTION-ELIGIBILITY-UNCLEAR, Federal Infrastructure Fee. The FIF document describes exemption categories but does not provide a decision tree or eligibility checklist that a small business owner could use to determine whether their business qualifies. The persona would want a simple decision aid: 'Are you under X employees? Under $Y revenue? In sector Z? Then exempt.' Current treatment requires reading several paragraphs to determine eligibility.

OBS, WORKED-EXAMPLES-HELPFUL, Federal Infrastructure Fee. The worked examples in the FIF document are the most useful element of this reading path for the persona. Concrete numerical examples for specific business types reduce the persona's cognitive load and help them anchor expectations. The persona notes this as a positive.

MIN, TRANSITION-TIMELINE-COMPRESSED, What This Means For You small business section. The small business section describes platform impact but compresses the transition timeline into a brief overview. Small business owners planning capital expenditures over 3-5 years would benefit from a year-by-year timeline of what changes and when. The persona would find a transition timeline visualization helpful.

Overall assessment for P5. The platform engages the small business owner at a useful level but with friction around decision-aid ergonomics. The persona would not dismiss the platform but might defer detailed engagement until they could see clearer answers to the specific questions a small business owner has. Highest-priority finding is exemption-eligibility unclarity, since this determines whether the platform's proposals affect the persona's business directly.

# P6: Concerned Citizen

Persona simulated: Concerned citizen trying to understand household impact. Reading path executed: What This Means For You, Does This Raise Taxes, Calculator. Concerns active: net household impact, healthcare transition, retirement security.

## P6 Findings

OBS, FRAMING-ACCESSIBLE, What This Means For You. The What This Means For You document is structured around demographic situations (working family, retiree, student, etc.) rather than around platform policy areas. This structure is the right choice for the persona; they want to find their situation, not navigate platform architecture. The persona notes this as a positive design choice.

MIN, NET-IMPACT-CALCULATION-OPACITY, Does This Raise Taxes. The document explains why the platform is not a tax increase in net but the explanation requires the reader to follow the architectural argument rather than trust a single net-impact number. The persona would benefit from a simple net-household-impact calculation showing what household types come out ahead, behind, or roughly even, with concrete dollar figures rather than architectural reasoning.

MIN, HEALTHCARE-TRANSITION-ANXIETY, What This Means For You. Healthcare transition is the highest-anxiety topic for the persona and the document acknowledges this. However, the transition process is described at a high level rather than with the kind of specifics that would address concrete worries (what happens to my current doctor, my prescriptions, my employer's plan). The persona would benefit from a frequently-asked-questions treatment specifically for healthcare transition concerns.

MIN, RETIREMENT-SECURITY-FRAMING, What This Means For You. The retirement security treatment acknowledges concerns but does not explicitly address the question that retirees and near-retirees ask first: 'will my Social Security benefits be reduced?' The answer appears to be no based on platform architecture, but the document could state this directly rather than requiring inference.

Overall assessment for P6. The platform engages the concerned citizen well at the framing level (situation-based structure) but with friction around the specifics that drive household-level decisions. The persona would likely complete the reading path and form a tentatively positive view, with specific anxieties about healthcare transition unresolved. Highest-priority finding is the net-impact calculation opacity in Does This Raise Taxes, since a clear net-impact number is the kind of evidence concerned citizens use to form opinions and share with others.

# Cross-Persona Summary

Five persona simulations produced 22 findings total: 2 SIG (FIF regulatory treatment incompleteness for industry persona; FIF sovereignty language insufficiency for tribal persona), 14 MIN (spread across personas), and 6 OBS (informational observations noting positive design choices). The two SIG findings both relate to the Federal Infrastructure Fee document, suggesting that FIF is the document most in need of supplementary specificity for industry-facing audiences.

The MIN findings cluster around three patterns: methodology depth (P2 policy professional, P3 industry professional); decision-aid ergonomics (P5 small business, P6 concerned citizen); and specificity gaps where high-level treatment leaves persona-specific concerns underaddressed. The OBS findings note three positive design choices: situation-based structuring in What This Means For You, comprehensive broadband substantiation, and OIR's analytical honesty discipline.

What this simulation set adds beyond the structural audit. The structural audit checks for typos, broken references, manifest integrity, and version sync. These are necessary but not sufficient for evaluating reading experience. The persona simulations surface findings about narrative coherence, tone, decision-aid ergonomics, and concern-fit that the structural audit cannot detect. None of the 22 findings duplicate already-documented OIR entries; each represents a reading-experience observation specific to the persona that surfaced it.

Recommended platform responses. The two SIG findings warrant treatment in subsequent iterations: Federal Infrastructure Fee regulatory architecture supplement; Federal Infrastructure Fee sovereignty language addition. The MIN findings represent incremental improvements rather than blocking issues; they could be addressed through targeted document revisions in future minor releases. The OBS findings document positive design choices and warrant preservation as the platform evolves.