← We The People Platform Download .docx

File | Distinctive Phrase | Audit Pattern | Category | Reason
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Iterative_Hardening_Process_Documentation | compiled at Jason's request after twelve iterations | twelve iterations | Legitimate historical reference | Item 80 v1.0 version line documents creation timing (after 12 iterations); historical fact, not a current claim about cycle scope
Open_Issues_Registry | developed across twelve iterations on May 6, 2026 | twelve iterations | Legitimate historical reference | OIR Section 21 v2.29 expansion entry documents when item 80 was created; historical fact
Platform_Package_Version | developed across twelve iterations | twelve iterations | Legitimate historical reference | Package Version doc v2.30 changelog entry; historical reference to item 80 creation context
Open_Issues_Registry | TOC-STALE-ITEM-80 (MIN): Item 80 TOC entry mentioned | twelve iterations | Previously-documented meta-trigger | OIR Section 29 (iter 18) documents TOC-STALE-ITEM-80 finding fix; literal quote was identified as meta-trigger pattern in iter 19 and is preserved as historical record of the fix
Open_Issues_Registry | no longer 'twelve iterations' stale | twelve iterations | Previously-documented meta-trigger | OIR Section 30 (iter 19) verification that iter 18 mitigation held; literal quote was identified as meta-trigger in iter 20 audit and preserved as historical record
Platform_Package_Version | TOC-STALE-ITEM-80 (MIN): item 80 TOC entry generalized from | twelve iterations | Previously-documented meta-trigger | Package Version doc v2.30.7 changelog (iter 18) documents the TOC-STALE-ITEM-80 fix; literal quote preserved as historical record
Open_Issues_Registry | What the platform claims. The platform's Universal Healthcare contribution is variously stated as | Pre-canonical healthcare rate references (e.g., '6 percent employer') | Previously-documented inconsistency | OPEN-1 entry in OIR Section 2 documents the historical pre-canonical healthcare rate variations (variants a, b, c, d) that OPEN-1 v2.26.3 resolved; references to pre-canonical rates here are documenting the prior inconsistency, not asserting current claims

Reader's Path Through Resolved Open Issues — Scoping Specification

v1.0 · Created May 6, 2026 for v2.30.41 (initial scoping specification answering design questions identified during v2.30.40 review of deferred-work items; specifies audience, takeaway, scope, format, length, update cadence, structural outline, and decision criterion for a future synthesis document)

Purpose of This Specification

This document specifies what the Reader's Path Through Resolved Open Issues synthesis should be (and not be). It answers the design questions identified during v2.30.40 review of deferred-work items, before the synthesis itself is written. The intent is to ensure the synthesis serves specific reader needs rather than existing because the platform feels it should have one. If, after reviewing this scope, the synthesis still appears valuable, writing it should be tractable in a single dedicated iteration. If the scope reveals the synthesis would be redundant with existing platform documents, that is also a valid outcome — better to determine that here than after writing.

Audience

Primary audience: external reviewers evaluating the platform's analytical discipline before recommending it for institutional engagement. This includes funders considering whether to support the platform's external engagement work, policy professionals assessing whether the platform is ready to enter institutional venues, and potential collaborators evaluating whether the platform's discipline matches the seriousness their context requires. The synthesis is not for casual readers (the Manifesto and Does This Raise Taxes serve them); it is not for the lead author's own reference (the Open Issues Registry serves that); it is for the specific intermediate audience that has read the headline materials, has questions about how rigorously the platform handles loose ends, and wants a structured way to evaluate that rigor without reading 60-plus OIR sections sequentially.

Secondary audience: the platform's lead author, when needing to communicate the platform's discipline track record to a new collaborator or interlocutor without sending them through the full OIR. The synthesis serves as a compact reference the author can point to, with the OIR available for readers who want full provenance.

Intended Reader Takeaway

After reading the synthesis, the reader should believe: (1) the platform has surfaced its loose ends rather than hidden them; (2) the platform has applied disciplined process to addressing each loose end; (3) the platform is honest about the distinction between issues it has resolved internally versus issues that require external engagement to fully close; (4) the platform's iteration history shows accumulating discipline rather than deteriorating discipline; and (5) the platform is in a state where external engagement is not blocked by unresolved internal-discipline concerns. The reader should NOT come away believing the platform claims to have solved everything; the platform's honesty about open work is part of what should make the reader trust the platform's discipline.

Scope

The synthesis covers the 31 issues consolidated in the Open Issues Registry's Section 47 table. These are the canonical platform issues with two-column Mitigated and Issue Status semantics established in v2.30.32. The synthesis does not cover the OIR's iteration-by-iteration sections — those are process discipline records, not issue-resolution narratives. The synthesis does not cover platform decisions that were always settled (canonical decisions like OPEN-1 and OPEN-2's parameter selections) — those are documented in the documents that decided them. The synthesis covers the approximately 21 issues with Issue Status resolved internally and the 10 issues requiring external engagement, with explicit treatment of the distinction.

Format and Length

Format: structured narrative document with brief introduction, four major sections, and closing assessment. Length target: 8 to 12 pages (approximately 4,000 to 6,000 words). Concise enough that a serious reviewer can read it in 30 minutes; comprehensive enough that the structural claims are substantiated rather than asserted.

Update Cadence

The synthesis is a current-state snapshot rather than a maintained reference. Once written, it should be updated when (a) the Section 47 table state changes substantively (new issues added, Issue Status changes for existing issues, or canonical decisions affecting the issue set), or (b) the platform reaches a new milestone for which an updated synthesis would be useful (such as before a major external engagement initiative). Routine harden-cycle iterations do not require the synthesis to update. The synthesis includes its as-of date prominently so readers know what platform state it reflects. If the synthesis becomes stale, rewriting from current OIR state is preferred over incremental editing of the previous version.

Relationship to Existing Documents

The synthesis builds on, rather than duplicates, three existing platform documents. The Open Issues Registry contains the canonical 31-issue table (Section 47) and the iteration-by-iteration history; the synthesis pulls from both but reorganizes for the external-reviewer audience rather than the lead-author audience. The How This Was Built document establishes the platform's intellectual honesty stance about AI collaboration; the synthesis extends that stance to the issue-resolution dimension. The harden cycle documentation describes the process discipline that produced the resolutions; the synthesis treats that discipline as established context rather than introducing it. The synthesis cross-references these documents explicitly so readers who want deeper provenance can navigate to them, while keeping the synthesis itself focused on issue-by-issue resolution narratives.

Structural Outline

Proposed structure with target paragraph counts in parentheses. Section A: Introduction explaining who the document is for and what to expect (3 to 4 paragraphs). Section B: The Two-Column Semantic Framework explaining the Mitigated and Issue Status distinction that v2.30.32 codified, since the framework determines how the rest of the synthesis is organized (3 to 4 paragraphs). Section C: Issues Resolved Within Platform Responsibility — approximately 21 issues where documentation responsibilities are met and Issue Status is closed, organized by category (resolved analytical questions, resolved process questions, resolved navigation questions), with 1 to 2 paragraphs per issue (approximately 25 to 30 paragraphs). Section D: Issues Requiring External Engagement — approximately 10 issues where Mitigated equals Y but Issue Status remains open pending external work, with for each issue: what was done internally, what specifically requires external engagement, and what kind of external engagement would close it (approximately 15 to 20 paragraphs). Section E: Common Patterns in the Platform's Resolution Approach — recurring techniques (harden cycle, abstracted language, two-column semantics, propagation-positive checks, manifest-integrity discipline, recursive meta-trigger awareness) presented as patterns rather than as iteration history (5 to 7 paragraphs). Section F: Honest Acknowledgments — what the platform's discipline does not address, what 40+ harden cycle iterations cannot substitute for, what reviewer skepticism remains warranted (3 to 4 paragraphs). Section G: For Readers Who Want More — explicit pointers to the Open Issues Registry for full provenance, the harden cycle documentation for process detail, and specific items in the platform for substantive analytical content (1 to 2 paragraphs).

What This Specification Does Not Specify

This specification does not write the synthesis itself; that is the work of a future iteration. This specification does not specify exact wording or section ordering within each major section; the writer of the synthesis applies judgment within the structural outline. This specification does not commit to a deadline or specific platform version for when the synthesis must be written; the platform's iteration discipline drives when substantive new analytical work happens, not external schedules. This specification can itself be revised if the writer of the synthesis encounters issues with the scope decisions documented here; revisions should be tracked in a v1.X version history of this document.

Decision Criterion for Writing the Synthesis

The synthesis should be written when at least one of the following is true: (a) an external engagement opportunity has materialized where the synthesis would specifically help the audience evaluate the platform's discipline, (b) the platform's lead author has identified a specific interlocutor for whom the synthesis would be more useful than pointing them at the OIR directly, or (c) the platform has reached a substantive milestone that warrants a checkpoint synthesis even without immediate external use. Until one of these triggers, the synthesis is specification-complete but not yet written; the specification itself ensures the writing work is tractable when triggered. Writing the synthesis without one of these triggers risks producing a document that ages in storage rather than serving readers; writing it under a clear trigger ensures the audience and takeaway sections of this specification translate into a document the audience actually reads.