==============================================================================
WE THE PEOPLE PLATFORM — PILLAR 1: COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION PLAN
==============================================================================

Download type:  Pillar
Group ID:       P1
Generated:      May 12, 2026
Documents:      41

DESCRIPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All documents tagged with Pillar 1 (Community Contribution Plan). Contains 41
documents spanning multiple folders.

DOCUMENTS INCLUDED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1. We The People — Platform Manifesto
     02_Vision_and_Communication/02_We_The_People_Platform.docx
     Best for: First-time readers wanting the integrated vision. Anyone
     evaluating the platform's overall coherence. The integrated vision
     document that introduces the three primary pillars (Community
     Contribution Plan, Empirical Wage Floors, Sovereign Education Fund) and
     the architecture supporting them. Includes the platform's foundational
     principle (“when I do well, we all do well”), the operational design of
     the cost-based pricing framework with field-of-study granularity, the
     two-channel disbursement architecture, the age-30 reversion mechanism,
     and the integration of all primary pillars as a single coherent system.
     This is the document most readers should encounter first. When to read:
     Read first if you want to understand what the platform actually proposes.
     Read again after engaging with the technical documents to see how the
     pieces fit together.

  2. The Founding Stake
     02_Vision_and_Communication/02_The_Founding_Stake.docx
     Best for: Readers interested in the platform's launch ceremony and
     political theory. Articulates the universal $2 contribution as
     constitutive participation — the mechanism by which every American
     becomes a founding stakeholder in the institutions the platform creates.
     The mathematical analysis is straightforward: $680M from 340M Americans
     contributing $2 each. The political theory underneath is more
     substantial: people defend institutions they helped build. The stake
     matters less for its dollar amount than for what it establishes about
     ownership and shared standing. When to read: Read if you want to
     understand the platform's launch mechanism and why universal contribution
     at enactment matters beyond the trivial dollar amount.

  3. Community Contribution Plan — Retirement Reform White Paper
     03_Technical_White_Papers/03_Community_Contribution_Plan_WhitePaper.docx
     Best for: Policy professionals, economists, and serious readers wanting
     the full retirement reform proposal. The full technical analysis of the
     retirement reform proposal. Covers the diagnosis of Social Security's
     solvency problem, the architectural alternative (hybrid sunset of
     pay-as-you-go financing combined with construction of a Sovereign
     Investment Fund), the international precedents (Norway GPFG, Australia
     Superannuation, Singapore CPF), the governance architecture, the
     mathematical projections demonstrating that peak transition borrowing
     reduces from $63T to $82B, and the operational mechanics of how the
     system would actually function across the multi-decade transition period.
     When to read: Read if you want the analytical foundation for the
     platform's most foundational pillar. This is the document that
     establishes the platform's analytical credibility.

  4. Combined Reform Model — The Foundational Math
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Combined_Reform_Model.xlsx
     Best for: The single most important model for understanding the
     platform's fiscal viability. The integrated model combining the Social
     Security sunset trajectory and the new Sovereign Fund construction
     trajectory. Demonstrates that running these processes in parallel
     produces peak transition borrowing of approximately $82 billion compared
     to the $63 trillion that the standalone sunset would require. This 99.9%
     reduction is the platform's signature analytical finding. The model
     includes sensitivity analysis showing how the reduction varies under
     different assumptions about returns, contribution rates, and demographic
     projections. When to read: Examine if you want to verify the platform's
     most important analytical claim. The model is the answer to anyone who
     says the platform's fiscal architecture is fantasy.

  5. Social Security Sunset Equilibrium Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_SS_Sunset_Equilibrium_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Readers wanting to see what standalone Social Security
     phase-out actually requires. Models the standalone phase-out of Social
     Security without replacement, demonstrating that the transition would
     require approximately $63 trillion in cumulative borrowing over sixty
     years. This model exists to establish the baseline against which the
     Combined Reform Model demonstrates its value. Reading this model first
     makes the Combined Reform Model's reduction visible as the meaningful
     analytical finding it is. When to read: Examine if you want to understand
     why the hybrid architecture matters. Read this before the Combined Reform
     Model for the full analytical arc.

  6. Hybrid Retirement System Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Hybrid_Retirement_System_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Readers wanting to see how the new contribution system performs
     on its own. Models the new contribution system as a standalone
     architecture without the Social Security sunset, demonstrating that even
     on its own merits the system produces approximately $1.23 million in
     personal account balances at retirement for a worker entering at age 25
     with median wages. The model also projects Sovereign Fund accumulation
     reaching approximately $122 trillion at year 60, providing the
     institutional capacity that funds the platform's other pillars. When to
     read: Examine if you want to see how the new contribution system
     functions as a retirement security mechanism independently of the
     transition dynamics.

  7. Education Fund + Cost-Based Pricing Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Education_Fund_Cost_Based_Pricing_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Readers wanting to verify the education fund's analytical
     foundation and the cost-based pricing framework. Models the Sovereign
     Education Fund integrated with retirement disbursements, plus the
     cost-based pricing framework with field-of-study granularity.
     Demonstrates that free college is mathematically achievable through 1.2%
     annual disbursements from the mature retirement Sovereign Fund. The
     Field-of-Study Pricing sheet shows how the cost-based formula produces
     price ceilings ranging from approximately $11,000 per year for English
     programs to approximately $22,000 per year for specialized engineering
     programs. The Operational Mechanics sheet documents the two-channel
     disbursement architecture and the anti-fraud design. When to read:
     Examine if you want to understand how the education pillar actually works
     operationally and how the cost-based pricing prevents institutional
     padding.

  8. Repairing the Past — Retroactive Debt Retirement
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Repairing_The_Past.docx
     Best for: Readers wondering whether the platform addresses harms
     accumulated under the previous system. Citizens carrying student loan
     debt or medical debt. Analyzes how the platform's surplus capacity can
     retire existing student loan and medical debt retroactively as the
     platform's pillars mature. The mathematics support retiring approximately
     $1.78 trillion in student loan debt across approximately 20 years using
     Sovereign Fund disbursement capacity, plus $220 billion in medical debt
     within 5 years using healthcare pillar surplus, all without requiring new
     contribution rates. Includes three timing scenarios for student loans
     (aggressive, moderate, conservative), three for medical debt, and a
     coordinated phasing strategy that addresses both. Honest about
     limitations: model assumptions, political windows required, operational
     capacity, equity considerations, and moral hazard concerns. When to read:
     Read if you're curious whether the platform addresses harms from the
     previous system or only prevents future ones. The answer is yes — the
     architecture has surplus capacity to repair past damage, not just to
     prevent future damage.

  9. Unlocking America's Potential — The Freedom to Become Exceptional
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Unlocking_Americas_Potential.docx
     Best for: Readers who want to understand what the platform is for at a
     level deeper than its specific policies. Audiences who care about
     American greatness, individual freedom, innovation, or historical
     continuity. The strategic framing document arguing that the platform is
     fundamentally an unleashing program rather than a redistribution program.
     Anchored in cognitive bandwidth research showing that chronic financial
     stress measurably reduces decision-making capacity (Mullainathan/Shafir
     scarcity findings, ~13 IQ point effect size), and in historical evidence
     about what Americans produced during the postwar era when their
     architecture supported rather than suppressed their capability (the GI
     Bill, the space program, the civil rights movement, computing, modern
     medicine, cultural achievements). Argues that information asymmetries in
     the current system prevent informed decision-making about education,
     healthcare, retirement, careers, and family planning, and that the
     platform's architectural transparency restores the conditions for
     informed citizenship. Makes the compound benefits pattern explicit:
     identity theft reduction, retroactive debt retirement, and cognitive
     bandwidth restoration are all benefits the platform produces that the
     original architecture didn't explicitly aim for, and the recurrence of
     this pattern is itself evidence of architectural soundness. When to read:
     Read if you want to understand what the platform is for, not just what it
     does. Especially valuable for engaging audiences the fairness framing and
     AI transition framing don't reach — conservatives, libertarians, business
     leaders, educators, and skeptics of universal programs. Addresses the
     dependency concern critics raise about universal infrastructure by
     arguing the opposite: the current architecture is what suppresses
     individual initiative.

 10. The Path to Reality — Implementation Timeline and Stakeholder Requirements
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Path_To_Reality.docx
     Best for: Readers who want to understand what implementation actually
     requires. Citizens evaluating their own potential contributions. Anyone
     moving from “does this work” to “how does this happen.” The
     implementation document describing what has to happen, when, and who has
     to do what. Organized in two parts. Part One is a phase-by-phase
     timeline: pre-enactment (Years -3 to 0, building political coalition and
     operational design), Year 1 enactment (legislative passage, Founding
     Stake collection, contribution system activation), build phase (Years
     2-5, workforce expansion and system integration), maturation phase (Years
     5-15, pillars reach full operation, compound benefits emerge, retroactive
     debt retirement begins), and steady state (Years 15+, the platform
     becomes the country's default architecture). Part Two is stakeholder
     requirements: citizens, companies, federal government, state governments,
     institutions (educational, healthcare, financial, childcare, mental
     health), civil society organizations, media, academic institutions,
     international coordination, and the political coalition. Includes
     critical dependencies, primary risks, and honest acknowledgment that the
     document is concept-level rather than operational specification. When to
     read: Read if you want to understand how the platform actually becomes
     operational reality and what your own potential contribution might be.
     Particularly valuable for citizens, organizers, and policy professionals
     thinking about implementation rather than design.

 11. Sovereign Fund Governance Design
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Sovereign_Fund_Governance_Design.docx
     Best for: Readers concerned about how a fund managing tens of trillions
     of dollars can be politically protected from raids, capture, or
     weaponization across sixty years. Articulates a multi-layer governance
     architecture for the Sovereign Fund: structural protections (split fund
     into five generational funds, mandate passive index investing, distribute
     voting rights to participating workers, geographic diversification
     limits), statutory protections (75% supermajority change requirement,
     trust structure with beneficiary standing, disbursement restrictions,
     anti-crisis exception drafting, sunset and reauthorization),
     institutional protections (board composition with multi-source selection,
     staggered 12-year terms, supermajority CEO selection, independent audit,
     Worker Councils), and constitutional aspirations (treaty-level
     commitments and constitutional amendment as long-term goals). Includes
     failure mode analysis for crisis-driven raids, gradual capture,
     technological capture, and political polarization erosion. Built in
     response to Gemini's external review identifying governance as the
     platform's hardest political problem. When to read: Read this if you find
     the Community Contribution Plan's mathematical foundation compelling but
     worry that a $122T fund cannot be governed durably. The document is the
     platform's most direct response to that concern.

 12. Refundable Transition Bridge Credit
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Refundable_Transition_Bridge_Credit.docx
     Best for: Readers asking whether the platform can offset higher costs
     during transition years when workers are paying for the new system in
     parallel with continuing FICA obligations. Articulates a refundable
     federal tax credit equal to a percentage of each worker's new-system
     contribution, declining linearly from 30% in Year 1 to 0% by Year 30.
     Produces approximately $2.29T in direct worker relief during transition
     years and keeps every worker's effective payroll burden below the
     original 12.4% FICA throughout the transition (range: 8.4% in Year 1 to
     11.9% in Year 30). Includes per-worker impact tables, system-level cost
     analysis, comparison with four alternative bridge mechanisms (FICA
     offset, payroll cap, Sovereign Fund bridge loan, income-tiered relief),
     implementation considerations (legislation, IRS (Internal Revenue
     Service) administration, funding mechanism), and honest acknowledgment of
     fiscal trade-offs (peak borrowing increases from $82B to $1.88T). The
     Combined Reform Model is updated to incorporate the bridge credit math;
     all stress-test scenarios continue to pass. When to read: Read this if
     you find the platform's long-run math compelling but worry about how
     working-age Americans experience the 30-year transition. The document
     articulates how the platform delivers immediate visible relief through a
     familiar mechanism (refundable tax credit) without breaking the long-run
     architecture.

 13. Civic Infrastructure: An Architectural Framing
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Civic_Infrastructure_Architectural_Framing.docx
     Best for: Readers asking how universal Civic Infrastructure (broadband,
     transportation, water, public spaces, Civic Technology, energy grid) can
     be delivered to all Americans, and how the platform integrates these into
     a coherent pillar. Establishes the Civic Infrastructure pillar's
     architectural framing with depth comparable to a concept-level pillar
     substantiation. Covers the definition of Civic Infrastructure in this
     platform (three-element test: physical/digital systems, must be
     accessible, enables modern American life), the six components (Universal
     Broadband, Transportation, Water and Sewer, Public Spaces, Civic
     Technology, Energy Grid Modernization), funding mechanism integrating
     Sovereign Fund disbursements (~55%) with consolidated existing federal
     infrastructure spending (~30%) and state/local cost share (~15%),
     governance architecture with federal Civic Infrastructure Authority plus
     state and local roles, universal service standards by component, 30-year
     phased buildout, cross-pillar dependency matrix, and honest
     acknowledgment of what architectural framing establishes vs what
     component substantiation must resolve. Updated in v2.4 to reflect the
     Path A commitment for Universal Broadband: free universal basic broadband
     at no cost to households, federal pays providers wholesale, premium tiers
     remain private, library backstop universal. Pillar total adjusted to
     $252-357B/yr (~0.8-1.2% GDP). When to read: Read this if you want to
     understand how the platform handles Civic Infrastructure as a coherent
     pillar. v2.4 reflects the Path A broadband commitment; substantive
     operational depth is in the Universal Broadband Access Substantiation.

 14. Civic Infrastructure Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Civic_Infrastructure_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Analysts wanting quantitative analysis of the Civic
     Infrastructure pillar's components, funding mechanism, and 30-year
     buildout timeline. Companion mathematical model to the Civic
     Infrastructure architectural framing document. Seven sheets covering
     README, Assumptions (component costs editable), Components (six
     components with substantiation roadmap), Funding Sources (Sovereign Fund
     + consolidated federal + state/local breakdown), Buildout Timeline
     (30-year phased investment), Cross-Pillar Dependencies (matrix), and
     Dashboard. Updated in v2.4 to reflect Path A broadband commitment:
     broadband component shifts from $15-20B to $38-68B/yr (mid $53B); pillar
     total shifts to $252-357B/yr mid $282B (~0.95% GDP); 30-year cumulative
     $6.71T. When to read: Open this if you want to interact with the Civic
     Infrastructure pillar's quantitative architecture. Adjust component cost
     assumptions, funding shares, or phase multipliers. Path A is reflected in
     v2.4 broadband cost.

 15. Per-Citizen Benefits and Costs Across the Deployment Timeline
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Per_Citizen_Benefits_and_Costs.docx
     Best for: Citizens, advocates, journalists, and political organizers
     asking what the platform delivers to individual American households — and
     what it costs them — at each deployment milestone. Translates the
     platform's federal-program-scale numbers into per-household impact at six
     deployment milestones (Year 1 launch, Year 5 Path A expansion, Year 7
     universal Path A, Year 12 Sovereign Fund at scale, Year 20 pillars
     mature, Year 30 steady state) for seven distinct household types:
     low-income single ($35K), middle-income single ($75K), low-income family
     with kids ($55K), middle-income family with kids ($110K), upper-middle
     family with kids ($200K), retiree on fixed income ($45K), and wealthy
     household ($500K, $5M+ assets). Establishes that a substantial majority
     of American households experience net positive impact at every milestone,
     with benefits growing as more pillars come online and the Sovereign
     Fund's coverage scales from 5% (Year 1) to 65% (Year 30) of platform
     commitments. Documents the structurally-progressive funding architecture:
     bottom 80% of income distribution receives net positive impact at every
     milestone; wealthy households (top 1-2% by net worth) experience net
     negative impact through wealth tax exposure but receive the same
     universal services as everyone else. Includes detailed methodology,
     conservative estimation choices, geographic variance acknowledgments, and
     political coalition implications. When to read: Read this if you want to
     understand what the platform delivers to specific American households at
     specific years. It's the citizen-facing translation that turns aggregate
     federal numbers into political coalition arithmetic. Most directly useful
     for advocacy and accountability conversations.

 16. Per-Citizen Cost-Benefit Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Per_Citizen_Cost_Benefit_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Analysts wanting to interact with the per-citizen analysis
     quantitatively, test sensitivity, or generate scenarios for specific
     household types. Companion mathematical model to the Per-Citizen Benefits
     and Costs document. Sheets cover README, Assumptions (population,
     household sizes, income deciles, status quo spending baselines, all
     editable), Pillar Costs by Milestone (federal program costs at each
     milestone for all platform pillars), Sovereign Fund Coverage (corpus
     accumulation and disbursement coverage trajectory), Per-Capita Federal
     Cost (taxpayer share by income decile and milestone), Citizen Benefits by
     Category (broadband, healthcare, childcare, mental health, education,
     wage floor, retirement, civic engagement), Status Quo Baseline (current
     household spending on services platform replaces), Household Type Detail
     (7 household types × 6 milestones with benefits, costs, and net), Net
     Benefit Summary (consolidated reference), Lifetime Cumulative (30-year
     cumulative net benefit by household type), Dashboard. Average household
     net benefit grows from +$1,300/yr (Year 1) to +$19,500/yr (Year 30);
     cumulative 30-year benefit for middle-income family with kids ~$580K.
     When to read: Open this to test sensitivity on assumption changes,
     explore specific household scenarios, or model alternative deployment
     timelines. The model exposes the underlying arithmetic that produces the
     per-citizen claims; advocates and skeptics alike should be able to verify
     or challenge the numbers.

 17. Gemini Review of v1.8 — External AI Review
     07_External_Reviews/07_Gemini_Review_of_v1_8.pdf
     Best for: Anyone wanting to see how the platform was evaluated by an
     external AI assistant. The first formal external review of the platform
     package, conducted by Gemini (an AI assistant developed by Google) on May
     4, 2026. Identifies four core strengths (empirical anchoring, systemic
     cross-subsidization, the unleashing narrative, transparent provenance)
     and four critical vulnerabilities (Sovereign Fund governance trap,
     healthcare industry pushback, sequence-of-returns risk during transition,
     childcare workforce capacity constraints). Preserved as the original PDF
     for archival accuracy. When to read: Read this to understand how the
     platform was evaluated by an external AI before reading the platform's
     response document.

 18. Response to Gemini Review
     07_External_Reviews/07_Response_To_Gemini_Review.docx
     Best for: Anyone wanting to see how the platform engages with substantive
     external critique. The platform's response to Gemini's review. Engages
     with each of the four identified vulnerabilities by distinguishing what's
     true, what could mitigate the vulnerability, and what remains unresolved.
     Identifies twenty specific actions the platform should take in subsequent
     versions, ranging from new analytical documents (Sovereign Fund
     Governance Design, Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan, Workforce
     Expansion Strategy) to model revisions (stress-test scenarios in Combined
     Reform Model, 18-year buildout in universal childcare Model). Also notes
     what the review didn't address (compound benefits pattern, wage floor tax
     architecture, Path to Reality implementation, personal tax comparison)
     for completeness. Establishes the response pattern that will continue for
     subsequent external reviews regardless of source. When to read: Read this
     after the Gemini review to see how the platform engages with substantive
     critique. Particularly valuable for understanding what the platform
     commits to deliver in subsequent versions in response to identified
     vulnerabilities.

 19. Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Federal_Fiscal_Impact_Analysis.docx
     Best for: Policy professionals asking the question every serious reviewer
     asks within minutes: what does this do to the federal deficit? Closes the
     consolidated fiscal-picture gap identified in v2.10 audience verification
     testing. Provides the consolidated picture of federal fiscal impact
     across all platform commitments and revenue sources. Headline numbers at
     mature steady state (Year 30): $4.2 trillion in new federal commitments,
     $1.5 trillion in absorbed existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid
     working-age, ACA subsidies), $3.6 trillion in new federal revenue
     (payroll contributions, modified income tax, Sovereign Fund disbursements
     covering ~65% at maturity), net impact of approximately $900 billion per
     year deficit reduction relative to current state. Sensitivity analysis to
     Sovereign Fund returns: 4% real (Norway-equivalent) yields ~$400B
     reduction; 2% real approximately neutral. Transition years addressed
     honestly: cumulative $8-12 trillion in additional federal borrowing over
     25 years before mature steady state. Comparison to Congressional Budget
     Office (CBO) projected current-law trajectory ($3.5-4 trillion deficit by
     2055) shows mature platform is fiscally favorable. When to read: Read
     this when forming a view on whether the platform is fiscally viable. The
     document does not promise certainty (most figures depend on the Sovereign
     Fund's 6% real return assumption) but provides the consolidated framework
     that policy reviewers need to evaluate the platform's fiscal claims.

 20. Behavioral Economics and Uptake Friction
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Behavioral_Economics_And_Uptake_Friction.docx
     Best for: Policy reviewers, implementation planners, and skeptics who
     want to understand whether the platform's mathematical models are
     realistic about how real households will engage with universal programs.
     Anyone who suspects 'this looks great on paper but real people won't use
     it as designed.' Examines the platform from a behavioral economics
     perspective. Identifies three architectural protections built into the
     platform's design (default-in coverage for universal programs, Direct
     File reducing tax filing friction, refundability of the Bridge Credit and
     mandatory distribution of the Founding Stake) and five exposure points
     where the platform remains vulnerable (occupation reporting for wage
     floor, state-administered program interactions, methodology choice in tax
     filing, loss aversion in political transition, information asymmetry with
     adversaries during a contested political environment). Provides
     sensitivity analysis showing what happens to the platform's central
     claims at 90, 80, and 70 percent uptake rates. Closes with implementation
     implications: pilot studies before national rollout; federal
     infrastructure as a critical-path precondition for default-in to work;
     loss-aversion-aware communication strategy; dedicated administrative
     capacity for ambiguous cases. Includes explicit Open Questions section
     documenting what the analysis raises but does not resolve. When to read:
     Read after the Manifesto and the federal fiscal impact analysis when you
     want to stress-test the platform against real-world implementation
     challenges. Especially valuable for organizations evaluating whether to
     support the platform politically — the document does not pull punches
     about the implementation work that remains to be done.

 21. State-Level Cooperation Requirements
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_State_Level_Cooperation_Requirements.docx
     Best for: Constitutional law analysts, federalism scholars, state policy
     professionals, and anyone evaluating the platform's deliverability
     through the federal-state structure of American government. Skeptics
     asking 'how does this work if Texas refuses?' Maps the platform's
     commitments into three federal-state categories. Pure federal commitments
     (federal income tax architecture, Sovereign Fund, Founding Stake, federal
     universal healthcare contributions, Direct File) deliver to all citizens
     regardless of state position. Federal-state cooperative commitments
     (universal healthcare delivery, universal childcare, mental health, Civic
     Infrastructure) work best with state cooperation but have federal-direct
     fallback options. Federal-funded state-administered commitments
     (restructured Medicaid, childcare provider networks, mental health
     delivery infrastructure) effectively require state cooperation. Examines
     constitutional constraints (anti-commandeering doctrine, conditional
     federal spending, NFIB v. Sebelius coercion test) and uses Medicaid
     expansion as the most relevant federal-state cooperation precedent.
     Recommends federal-direct delivery designs for state non-cooperation
     cases, partial-credit refund mechanisms for residents of non-cooperating
     states, and public tracking of state cooperation status as accountability
     infrastructure. Includes explicit Open Questions section. When to read:
     Read alongside the Federal Program Integration Plan and Federal Fiscal
     Impact Analysis when you want to understand the platform's federalism
     layer. Critical reading for legal analysts evaluating constitutional
     viability and for policy reviewers in non-cooperating states evaluating
     how the platform would actually affect their state's residents.

 22. Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Non_Citizens_And_Platform_Eligibility.docx
     Best for: Policy analysts, immigration policy professionals, mixed-status
     families, and reviewers asking how the platform treats the approximately
     47 million non-citizens living in the United States. Anyone who notices
     that 'universal' has not been precisely defined for this population. Maps
     the platform's commitments against five non-citizen categories: legal
     permanent residents (12.5 million green card holders), long-term work
     visa holders (1-2 million), student visa holders, temporary protected
     status / asylum pending / refugee status (several million), and
     unauthorized immigrants (10-12 million). Works through each platform
     commitment by category, identifies the major design choices the platform
     must make, and analyzes the failure modes (pay-but-don't-receive,
     documentation friction, fear-based non-engagement under chilling-effect
     immigration rules, state-level variability). Mixed-status families are
     addressed with the principle of individual-by-individual eligibility
     rather than monolithic family treatment. Three approaches for
     unauthorized workers are outlined explicitly with their trade-offs. The
     federal income tax architecture (wage floor exemption) likely applies to
     all filers regardless of citizenship status. The Founding Stake is
     reasonably citizenship-restricted. The most consequential unresolved
     choice is healthcare access for unauthorized workers, which would
     otherwise produce ~$24 billion per year in pay-but-don't-receive
     contributions. Eight explicit Open Questions document remaining work.
     When to read: Read after the Manifesto and Federal Program Integration
     Plan when you need to understand whether the platform's universal claims
     actually apply universally. Critical reading for immigration-focused
     organizations evaluating whether to support the platform politically and
     for mixed-status families concerned about how the platform would affect
     them.

 23. Cohabiting Unmarried Couples
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Cohabiting_Unmarried_Couples.docx
     Best for: Cohabiting couples (~17 million Americans) wondering how the
     platform treats them, family-policy professionals, and reviewers who
     notice that the calculator and comparison tables only support Single,
     MFJ, and HoH categories without explicitly addressing cohabiting
     partners. Works through the platform's treatment of cohabiting unmarried
     couples across each commitment. The federal tax system already treats
     cohabiting partners as separate filers; the platform inherits this
     framework cleanly. Per-individual benefits architecture (universal
     healthcare, childcare, mental health, Founding Stake) handles cohabiting
     couples consistently with married couples. Edge cases warranting
     attention include: dependent allocation rules for couples with shared
     children, the small differential in wage floor exemption between
     cohabiting and married couples (cohabiting often slightly higher due to
     per-occupation floors), Bridge Credit evaluation for couples whose
     household economy differs from individual filer status, mid-year
     composition changes, common-law marriage states (approximately ten), and
     domestic partnership registries. Mixed-status cohabiting couples
     intersect with the Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility document. The
     platform's design is largely consistent with current law; this document
     makes the specific choices explicit rather than leaving them implicit.
     Seven Open Questions document remaining work, including coordination of
     Direct File for cohabiting couples' tax planning. When to read: Read with
     What This Means For You when your household is a cohabiting couple
     wanting to understand which scenarios in the comparison tables most
     closely match your situation. Read with Non-Citizens And Platform
     Eligibility if your household is a mixed-status cohabiting couple.

 24. Public-Sector Worker Transitions
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Public_Sector_Worker_Transitions.docx
     Best for: Federal civilian employees, military service members and
     veterans, postal workers, state and local government employees, and the
     unions and associations that represent them. Anyone asking how the
     platform interacts with Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB),
     TRICARE, FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System), military retirement,
     or state employee benefits. Maps the platform against approximately 22
     million public-sector workers across federal civilian (2.3M with FEHB and
     FERS), military (1.3M active plus 800K reserves with TRICARE and military
     retirement), Postal Service (640K), and state and local government (19.5M
     with varied state-administered programs) categories. The recommended
     design treats existing public-sector benefits as enhanced coverage
     layered atop universal foundation: federal employees pay the universal
     healthcare contribution and receive universal coverage with FEHB as
     supplemental; the federal employer continues to fund FEHB premium
     subsidies; military members receive universal coverage plus TRICARE as
     enhanced; state employees similarly. This preserves existing benefits
     unchanged, respects vested rights doctrine for accrued pensions,
     minimizes political opposition from organized public-sector unions, and
     integrates with universal architecture. The most significant unresolved
     issue is treatment of Section 218 non-covered workers (~5 million state
     and local government employees who do not pay FICA and would be excluded
     by default from a FICA-equivalent universal healthcare contribution).
     Specific design choices about FERS / CSRS integration with the Community
     Contribution Plan, TRICARE for Life integration with universal
     healthcare, and state pension system interactions all require detailed
     actuarial analysis that this document does not provide. Nine Open
     Questions document remaining work. When to read: Read with the Federal
     Program Integration Plan and State-Level Cooperation Requirements when
     you need to understand how the platform integrates with public-sector
     employment. Critical reading for public-sector union leadership and for
     federal employees, military members, and state and local government
     workers evaluating the platform's effect on their specific benefits.

 25. Existing Pensioners and the Platform
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Existing_Pensioners.docx
     Best for: Approximately 75 million Americans receiving retirement income
     from at least one defined benefit source. AARP (American Association of
     Retired Persons) members, retired federal/state/military employees,
     Social Security recipients, and private DB plan recipients. Anyone over
     60 evaluating the platform's effect on existing retirement income. Maps
     the platform against pensioners across Social Security retirees (52M),
     state and local government pensioners (11M), federal civilian retirees
     (2.6M), military retirees (2.1M), and private DB plan recipients (10M).
     The platform's treatment is largely preservation: existing benefits
     continue unchanged as vested rights; existing healthcare (Medicare, FEHB,
     TRICARE, state retiree benefits) continues with universal healthcare
     integration; existing tax treatment continues with wage floor exemption
     available as alternative methodology. The Community Contribution Plan
     replaces FICA at a revenue-neutral rate in mature steady state, producing
     no benefit changes for existing Social Security recipients. The
     platform's most valuable specific contributions to pensioners are
     universal healthcare's coverage of the early-retiree gap (eliminating
     financial planning challenge of pre-Medicare years for
     federal/military/state early retirees, approximately 10 million people)
     and broader insulation from healthcare cost inflation that universal
     coverage provides. Younger spouses of Medicare-eligible pensioners (a
     non-Medicare-eligible spouse of a 65-year-old retiree, for example)
     receive universal healthcare automatically rather than needing to
     maintain private insurance until their own Medicare eligibility. The most
     significant unresolved issues are the long-term care gap (acknowledged
     but not solved by the platform), the Social Security taxation threshold
     question (set in 1983/1993 statute, unindexed for inflation), and the
     wage floor exemption mechanics for retirement income. Eight Open
     Questions document remaining work. When to read: Read after the Manifesto
     when you are a current pensioner or will be one within the next decade.
     Read with the Federal Program Integration Plan for the Medicare
     integration mechanics, and with the Public-Sector Worker Transitions
     document if you receive a federal civilian, military, or state pension.

 26. Section 8 Housing and Federal Housing Assistance
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Section_8_Housing_And_Federal_Housing_Assistance.docx
     Best for: Housing policy professionals, Section 8 households (~5M),
     Section 8 waitlist households (~13M), and reviewers asking how the
     platform interacts with HUD (Department of Housing and Urban
     Development)'s voucher program. Anyone noticing that the platform
     addresses healthcare, childcare, education, and infrastructure but not
     housing. Maps the platform's interaction with the federal Housing Choice
     Voucher Program. Identifies the mechanical interactions where universal
     childcare and universal healthcare reduce Section 8's deduction values,
     producing apparent rent increases that are offset by direct household
     savings on the underlying costs (a $22,000 reduction in childcare costs
     partially offset by ~$6,000 increase in Section 8 rent contribution, net
     household savings ~$16,000). Examines the waitlist problem: only ~25
     percent of eligible households actually receive vouchers. Outlines three
     approaches: Approach A leaves Section 8 unchanged (status quo); Approach
     B uses Sovereign Fund capacity to fund universal eligibility-based access
     (~$40-50 billion annual federal expenditure); Approach C restructures
     federal housing policy more fundamentally. The platform's current silence
     on housing affordability is identified as a real scope limitation that
     future versions should consider closing. Seven Open Questions document
     remaining work, including HUD regulatory adjustment, source-of-income
     discrimination preemption, and broader housing supply policy. When to
     read: Read after the Manifesto when you receive Section 8 assistance or
     are on a Section 8 waitlist. Read with State-Level Cooperation
     Requirements for the analogous PHA administrative variation issues.

 27. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Cash Assistance
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_TANF_And_Cash_Assistance.docx
     Best for: Anti-poverty policy professionals, TANF recipients and
     applicants, state TANF administrators, and reviewers asking how the
     platform interacts with cash welfare programs. Anyone evaluating whether
     the platform addresses poverty substantively or only at the margins. Maps
     the platform's interaction with the federal TANF block grant program.
     Identifies how universal childcare and universal healthcare fundamentally
     change TANF's economic logic: the work requirement structure assumed
     labor market dynamics that no longer apply when childcare is essentially
     free under the platform. The TANF block grant has been frozen at $16.5
     billion since 1996 (losing ~50 percent of real value to inflation).
     Outlines three restructuring approaches: Approach A leaves TANF
     substantially unchanged (path of least resistance, produces drift toward
     irrelevance); Approach B substantially restructures TANF as focused
     last-resort cash assistance for families whose situations require cash
     beyond what universal services and labor market provide; Approach C
     replaces TANF with a refundable family assistance credit administered
     through the federal tax system. The platform's broader anti-poverty
     architecture (wage floor exemption, Bridge Credit, Founding Stake,
     universal services) reduces a low-income family's costs by $20,000-25,000
     per year regardless of TANF choice. Seven Open Questions, including
     whether the platform should commit to ending poverty (vs reducing it) as
     an explicit goal. When to read: Read with the Refundable Transition
     Bridge Credit document and the Federal Program Integration Plan for the
     platform's broader anti-poverty architecture. Critical reading for
     anti-poverty advocacy organizations evaluating the platform.

 28. Aging-in-Place Implications
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Aging_In_Place_Implications.docx
     Best for: Older Americans (and their families) planning retirement,
     residents and families considering CCRCs and assisted living, family
     caregivers (~53 million), and reviewers asking what the platform does
     about long-term care. Critical reading for AARP, retirement community
     resident councils, and aging-focused advocacy organizations. Identifies
     long-term care as the platform's largest single coverage gap. The Federal
     Program Integration Plan acknowledges this; this document develops the
     analysis. Maps the platform's interaction with CCRC residents (~750K in
     ~1,900 communities under three contract types), assisted living (~1M
     residents at average ~$60K/year), nursing homes (~1.3M residents at
     average ~$94-108K/year), HCBS (Home and Community-Based Services)
     programs (state-administered, varies enormously), PACE (~70K
     participants), and informal caregivers (~53M Americans providing
     $400-500B annually in unpaid care). The Medicaid spend-down dynamic
     continues under the platform. Outlines three design directions for future
     platform versions: Direction A (Long-Term Care (LTC) pillar with
     dedicated payroll contribution); Direction B (Medicaid HCBS expansion);
     Direction C (hybrid universal/means-tested). The platform's architecture
     leaves room for substantial LTC expansion in future versions. Eight Open
     Questions document remaining work. When to read: Read with the Federal
     Program Integration Plan and Existing Pensioners and the Platform when
     you are planning for or providing eldercare. Critical reading for
     households where adults are caring for aging parents.

 29. US Territories and the Platform
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_US_Territories.docx
     Best for: Residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI (United States Virgin
     Islands), American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands (~3.5-3.7
     million people total). Territorial advocacy organizations,
     federal-territorial relations professionals, and reviewers asking how the
     platform's universal commitments apply to territorial residents. Maps the
     platform against the five inhabited US territories. Examines the
     constitutional framework (the Insular Cases of 1901-1905, criticized by
     Justice Sotomayor among others but operative). Walks through distinctive
     federal tax structures: Puerto Rico (federal payroll tax but not federal
     income tax on PR-source income), Guam/USVI/NMI (mirror code systems),
     American Samoa (separate tax code; residents are US nationals rather than
     US citizens). The Section 1108 Medicaid funding cap has been the largest
     federal program disparity for territorial residents. Recommends explicit
     equal extension of all platform universal commitments to territories.
     Identifies three positions on broader territorial federal program
     treatment from Position A (status quo) through Position C (territorial
     status reform). Nine Open Questions document specific implementation
     requirements, communication infrastructure needs (Spanish-language
     materials for Puerto Rico, territory-specific contexts), and the
     Sovereign Fund's interaction with territorial federal tax differentials.
     When to read: Essential reading for any territorial resident evaluating
     the platform. Read with State-Level Cooperation Requirements for the
     analogous federal-territorial cooperation considerations and with
     Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility for the related question of how
     nationality and citizenship affect platform access.

 30. Climate Policy Beyond Grid Modernization
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Climate_Policy_Beyond_Grid_Modernization.docx
     Best for: Climate-engaged constituencies, environmental advocacy
     organizations, climate policy professionals, and reviewers asking why the
     platform addresses healthcare, childcare, education, and infrastructure
     but not comprehensive climate policy. Honest acknowledgment of the
     platform's largest scope omission. Maps what the platform addresses in
     climate policy (Energy Grid Modernization commitment, Civic
     Infrastructure with climate adaptation overlap, Sovereign Fund climate
     transition exposure considerations) versus what it omits (carbon pricing,
     fossil fuel subsidies, environmental justice, climate adaptation as
     explicit policy, agricultural emissions, building efficiency). Examines
     the platform's interaction with the existing federal climate framework:
     the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
     EPA regulatory authority, state-level climate policies. None of these are
     incompatible with the platform's existing commitments. Outlines five
     design directions for future climate integration: carbon pricing as
     Sovereign Fund revenue source (Direction A, ~$200B/year initially);
     environmental justice integration with Civic Infrastructure (Direction
     B); climate adaptation as Civic Infrastructure component (Direction C);
     building code and efficiency integration (Direction D); agricultural
     climate policy (Direction E). The platform's architecture leaves room for
     substantial climate expansion without fundamental redesign. Ten Open
     Questions document unresolved choices including Sovereign Fund investment
     policy and international climate framework interactions. When to read:
     Essential reading for climate-engaged audiences. The document is honest
     about platform scope limits and outlines specific paths future versions
     could take. Read with the Energy Grid Modernization document for the
     platform's existing climate-relevant commitments.

 31. Open Issues Registry
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Open_Issues_Registry.docx
     What it does: Consolidates everything the platform is aware of but has
     not fully resolved. Includes (a) issues mitigated in v2.24 (Manifesto
     cover tagline; healthcare per-capita timeline; TOC rate language); (b)
     open issues awaiting resolution (healthcare contribution rate has four
     different values across the package; wealth surcharge architecture has
     three versions; FFIA shows zero net new revenue from "modified income tax
     architecture"; Adjacent Pillars Under Development uses outdated framing);
     (c) topics aware of but needing more research (Federal Reserve / monetary
     policy interaction; housing market interaction; wage floor disemployment
     quantification; healthcare cost reduction decomposition; Sovereign Fund 4
     percent return scenario; intersectional pay gap analysis;
     climate-omission strategic reasoning); (d) acknowledged scope omissions
     (long-term care, hearing aids, comprehensive climate policy, housing
     supply, immigration); (e) acknowledged process limitations (lead author
     not credentialed economist; External Reviews folder contains only AI
     reviews; mathematical models not independently audited). When to read:
     Read after the Manifesto if you want to know what the platform's authors
     know about the platform's limitations. The registry is offered in the
     same spirit as the Provenance document — transparency over polish.

 32. Emergency Services Communications Modernization
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Emergency_Services_Communications.docx
     What it does: Documents the current state of US emergency services
     communications (active POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) retirement
     crisis; fragmented state-by-state NG911 deployment; tribal nation 911
     inadequacies; FirstNet operational structure) and the platform's
     commitments at the federal infrastructure layer. Five mechanisms link
     universal broadband to emergency services modernization: (a) NG911 IP
     transport substrate replacing fragmented state ESInet procurements; (b)
     POTS retirement solved via federal broadband as carrier for fire alarms,
     elevator phones, school panic buttons, and PSAP (Public Safety Answering
     Point) backup paths; (c) federal cellular site co-deployment alongside
     fiber, at marginal cost, addressing rural and tribal wireless coverage
     gaps for 911; (d) full NG911 transition funding via Sovereign Fund
     disbursements, closing the $5.8 to $9.27 billion gap that the NTIA
     (National Telecommunications and Information Administration)'s 2026 cost
     study identified; (e) FirstNet contract renegotiation following the March
     2026 Lutnick/AT&T precedent, delivering open interconnection, expanded
     coverage commitments, reduced sustainability payments to PSAPs, and 2042
     transition planning. Tribal nation sovereignty is treated as a
     first-class concern: free service commitment, sovereign choice over
     implementation, three operating models for tribal 911 (operate own PSAP,
     route to neighboring county under federal-supported service agreement,
     hybrid). Federal cybersecurity standards adopted from existing CISA,
     NIST, NENA, and CJIS frameworks rather than reinvented. National
     standardization benefits identified explicitly: cross-jurisdictional call
     routing, common protocols, mutual aid coordination, common training.
     Includes implementation sequence (Years 1-3 foundation; Years 4-7
     buildout; Years 8-10 completion), cost analysis with explicit uncertainty
     bands, what is not addressed (LMR replacement, PSAP operations, 911 fee
     reform, international coordination), and open questions (federal cellular
     co-deployment cost estimation, reliability SLA specification, FirstNet
     reauthorization, tribal consultation requirements, spectrum allocation,
     cost recovery model). When to read: Read after the Universal Broadband
     Access Substantiation and the Civic Infrastructure Architectural Framing
     for the platform's emergency services position. Particularly relevant for
     state 911 administrators, PSAP operators, public safety advocates, tribal
     infrastructure officials, and any reviewer asking how the platform
     interacts with the existing federal emergency services framework.

 33. Federal Infrastructure Fee
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Federal_Infrastructure_Fee.docx
     What it does: Establishes the Federal Infrastructure Fee as the
     platform's commitment for cost recovery on the federally-owned broadband
     and cellular infrastructure (per items 51 and 77). Documents (a) the
     architectural shift from Path A (federal subsidy of private ISPs at
     $48B/year) to Path B (federal ownership of fiber and cellular gap sites),
     with thirty-year cost projection showing approximately $1.5-1.7T in
     savings under Path B; (b) federal capital deployment cost analysis
     (~$270B at full deployment: last-mile fiber, backbone, cellular gap
     sites); (c) annual O&M analysis (~$13.5B/year); (d) future capacity
     reserve (~$6.75B/year); (e) annual revenue requirement of approximately
     $34B/year. Analyzes four fee allocation structures (per-employee, tiered,
     revenue-based, hybrid) with worked examples for various company profiles,
     recommending Structure D (hybrid: $600/year per location +
     $175/employee/year exempting first 25 + 0.035% of revenue above $50M).
     Inflation indexing via BLS-blended formula (50% wired telecom PPI + 30%
     telecom technician ECI + 20% telecom equipment PPI). Demand adaptation
     via capacity utilization triggers and volumetric component for very large
     users. Replaces USF and consolidates state telecom taxes (revenue-neutral
     overall, ~$3B/year in operational efficiency gains). Pass-through
     prevention via transparency, FTC oversight, market structure, and
     regulated industries. Industry exemptions for public-purpose entities
     (public hospitals, schools, libraries, public safety, tribal nations,
     government agencies) with for-profit equivalents paying. Fraud surface
     area and identity theft reduction (eliminates household-level subsidy
     verification PII collection; reduces documented USF/ACP fraud by
     ~$200-500M/year). Turnpike-toll model and other regulatory analogies
     (airport landing fees, marine port fees, spectrum auctions, water utility
     connection fees). Transparency commitments (annual cost reports,
     Government Accountability Office (GAO) and external audit, three-year
     forward projections, public comment periods, FCC dispute authority). Open
     questions identified honestly: privately-owned fiber acquisition
     mechanism, pass-through incidence empirical estimation, forward
     projection accuracy validation, exemption boundary definitions, Sovereign
     Fund capital treatment, federal infrastructure operator governance. When
     to read: Read after the Universal Broadband Access Substantiation and
     Emergency Services Communications Modernization. Particularly relevant
     for telecommunications policy professionals, fiscal policy reviewers,
     business owners modeling potential platform impact, state telecom
     regulators, and anyone evaluating the platform's
     federal-ownership-vs-subsidy architectural decision.

 34. Self-Employed and Gig Worker Implementation
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Self_Employed_and_Gig_Worker_Implementation.docx
     Best for: Self-employed workers, independent contractors, gig-economy
     workers (rideshare, food delivery, freelance), and tax preparers serving
     these segments. Addresses contribution mechanism specifics
     (FICA-convention split applied to self-employment), gig worker
     multi-employer treatment (worker-side self-administration default),
     quarterly payment integration (consolidated quarterly payments),
     healthcare for non-W-2 workers, and Sovereign Fund accumulation without
     employer structure. Includes worked examples for independent contractor
     and multi-platform gig worker. Companion to Federal Income Tax Revenue
     Modified Architecture and What This Means For You documents.

 35. Architectural Intent Mitigations: PERSONA-MIN-14 Through 24
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Architectural_Intent_Mitigations.docx
     Best for: Policy reviewers wanting to understand how the platform
     addresses persona-driven findings without claiming credentialed
     expertise. Mitigates eleven PERSONA-MIN items at architectural-intent
     level: healthcare operations (EHR integration, specialty referrals,
     malpractice), constitutional review (commerce clause for FIF, takings
     clause for stranded assets, federalism preemption), state-level
     implementation (state fiscal impact, state implementation timeline,
     federal-state data sharing), and Sovereign Fund investment operations
     (market impact at scale, pension fund interaction). Companion to v3.1.10
     Self-Employed and Gig Worker Implementation; together they close the
     entire twenty-seven-item PERSONA-MIN backlog.

 36. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option A (Light Update; Twelve Pillars)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionA_Light.pptx
     Best for: Anyone wanting the lightest of three slideshow alternatives
     produced for comparison. Option A preserves the original 16-slide deck
     structure and adds one new slide for the four pillars added in 2026
     (P9-P12). (The original sixteen-slide deck has been removed in v3.7.5;
     Option A supersedes it for the same audience.) See also Options B and C.

 37. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option A (Light Update; PDF)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionA_Light.pdf
     Best for: Same content as the Option A PowerPoint, in PDF format for
     distribution and viewing without PowerPoint. Auto-generated from the pptx
     file via headless soffice export.

 38. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option B (Medium Restructure; Twelve Pillars by Funding)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionB_Medium.pptx
     Best for: Anyone wanting an overview slideshow that organizes the
     twelve-pillar architecture by funding mechanism. Option B is the medium
     restructure of three slideshow alternatives produced for comparison;
     preserves the original three-problems-share-one-solution framing and the
     three primary pillars detail; replaces the existing slide 8 with three
     new slides showing all twelve pillars organized by funding architecture
     (twelve-pillar overview, five payroll-funded pillars with P6+P8 combined
     into one cell, four non-payroll mechanisms).

 39. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option B (Medium Restructure; PDF)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionB_Medium.pdf
     Best for: Same content as the Option B PowerPoint, in PDF format.
     Auto-generated from the pptx file via headless soffice export.

 40. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option C (Full Rebuild; Life-Stage Organization)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionC_LifeStage.pptx
     Best for: Anyone wanting an overview slideshow that organizes the
     twelve-pillar architecture by life stage. Option C is the full rebuild of
     three slideshow alternatives produced for comparison; preserves the
     original three-problems-share-one-solution framing and the three primary
     pillars detail; replaces the existing slide 8 with five new life-stage
     slides showing how all twelve pillars map to childhood, working age,
     retirement and aging, with cross-cutting infrastructure pillars on the
     overview slide and a final funding-architecture summary slide.

 41. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option C (Full Rebuild; PDF)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionC_LifeStage.pdf
     Best for: Same content as the Option C PowerPoint, in PDF format.
     Auto-generated from the pptx file via headless soffice export.

FORMAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each document is included in two formats:
  - .docx — original Word document (best for editing or full-fidelity reading)
  - .html — self-contained browser-viewable version (works on any device)

The .html files include the platform's flag background, formatting, and
a navigation link back to the platform index (if you have the rest of the
package). They open in any web browser by double-clicking.

ABOUT THE PLATFORM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The We The People Platform is a federal-policy reform proposal package
authored by Jason Robertson. The full platform consists of 109 documents
across 12 policy pillars. This ZIP is a curated subset.

Full platform: https://wethepeopleplatform.com
(or the platform_index.html page from the full package)

==============================================================================