Open Questions
Building this platform in the open means being clear about what is not yet settled. These are the twenty-nine questions still under analysis — each documented with a response framework and the discipline whose expertise would close it. Any reader can see what is settled and what remains open; if you work in one of the fields below, these items are where your expertise would help most. Consider this an open invitation to challenge the platform: take an item, pressure-test the reasoning, and show where it breaks. That kind of scrutiny is exactly what the platform is built to absorb.
Share This Page
Send this page to a colleague, post it to a professional network, or use it as the outreach link in an outreach email. The full brief is also available as a downloadable Word document for email attachments and offline reading.
The Platform in Ninety Seconds
We The People is a federal-policy platform organized around twelve pillars: Community Contribution Plan, Empirical Wage Floors, Sovereign Education Fund, Universal Healthcare Access, Universal Childcare, Universal Mental Health, Civic Infrastructure, Universal Paid Family Time, Universal Long-Term Care, Federal Housing Investment, Climate Architecture, and Immigration Architecture. Each pillar adapts a proven foreign implementation rather than inventing a new mechanism. The platform is universal rather than means-tested, capitalized over a sixty-year horizon toward a $122T sovereign fund, empirically anchored with every quantitative parameter citing a specific federal data source preserved under cryptographic checksum, and engineered for iteration with every architectural decision logged in an Open Issues Registry. The platform is currently in production-ready candidate state.
For a visual overview, see Platform Architecture. For the full document set, see the Document Index. For the platform's methodology and stance, see About.
Why Your Expertise Is Being Requested
Across eighty-two tracked analytical issues, twenty-nine remain open pending external credentialed review. These are not gaps from lack of effort — each open item has been documented at the platform-internal level, has an architectural response framework in place, and has been mitigated to the limit of the author's appropriate scope. They are open because closure requires expertise the author appropriately defers to specialists.
The author has been disciplined about distinguishing between what is in scope (analytical architecture, parameter selection from federal data, sensitivity analysis within the author's quantitative training) and what is out of scope (microsimulation at JCT/TPC/Penn Wharton level, constitutional law at depth appropriate for architectural novelty, sovereign-wealth-fund management practice, tribal government-to-government consultation, and similar).
Open Items by Discipline
If your expertise sits in any of the following, a documented review would close one or more of the twenty-nine open items. Each item has a detailed engagement specification in the External Engagement Plan.
Healthcare and health economics
Healthcare cost reduction decomposition validation, provider payment rate-setting mechanism design, provider compensation channel decomposition. Engagement specifications anticipate analysts familiar with CMS data, BLS occupational data, and National Health Expenditure accounts.
Long-term care economics
Pillar Nine workforce phase-in trajectory, benefit-cost projection validation, dual-eligible state-Medicaid program integration.
Constitutional and administrative law
Direct-tax-clause depth analysis for the federal investment fund architecture; immigration federalism analysis post-Arizona v. United States.
Housing economics and policy
Federal Housing Investment market effects on supply, prices, and regional distribution; integration with existing federal housing programs (Section 8 vouchers, public housing authorities, LIHTC).
Climate and environmental economics
Carbon-fee distributional incidence analysis, per-capita rebate mechanism specification, WTO-compatible carbon border adjustment design.
Education policy and economics
Curriculum-approval body institutional structure, federally-employed campus liaison program design, doctoral-funding transition mechanics, intensive-support completion-rate validation, counselor workforce buildout timeline.
Sovereign Fund investment management
Asset-allocation policy, benchmark selection, active-versus-passive split, ESG integration, four percent real-return scenario validation.
Macroeconomic and fiscal modeling
Federal Reserve and monetary policy interaction with sovereign fund accumulation; CBO-equivalent fiscal modeling of net positive immigration impact over ten-year and seventy-five-year windows. Phased-rollout gate thresholds and circuit-breaker trip points (GUARD-1): calibrating the stability gates between rollout phases and the indicators and trip points that would pause or adjust the rollout, which requires macroeconomic and actuarial estimates.
Independent mathematical audit
Documented audit of the combined reform model under CFA Institute, ISDA, or Federal Reserve Supervisory Letter 11-7 standards.
Tribal government-to-government consultation
This is not a research review — it is a sovereign consultation. Engagement specifications anticipate established government-to-government channels under Executive Order 13175 and the Indian Self-Determination Act.
What Review Looks Like in Practice
Each engagement specification provides four pieces of information for a potential reviewer: what the platform has already done internally and where to find it, what specific analytical task remains, what level of effort the author estimates the review requires, and what artifact the review would produce.
Five engagement kinds are distinguished. Kind A validation tracks are reviews of existing platform response frameworks against the reviewer's independent methodology, typically producing a fifteen- to thirty-page written assessment. Kind B depth-development tracks are multi-month structured collaborations producing a substantive new analytical document. Kind C independent mathematical audits are formal audits with documented opinions. Kind D government-to-government consultation is the singular case of tribal sovereignty engagement, following established protocols. Kind E AI-assisted scoping reviews are reviews produced by Large Language Models in standard chat or sandbox interfaces; these are logged for transparency but do not substitute for the credentialed-human review tracks that the platform seeks as it matures.
Compensation and Attribution Policy
Named acknowledgment is the default. Every external review is logged with the reviewer's name, affiliation, and the specific item or items reviewed. Reviewers who prefer anonymous engagement may request anonymous logging at the time of engagement scope agreement; the default is named credit. Anonymous review remains in the iteration record (the platform's discipline depends on every external engagement being recorded), but identifying details are redacted in the public-facing log.
Compensation for reviews exceeding ten hours. Light-touch reviews (under approximately ten hours of reviewer time, typically a written assessment of an existing platform response framework) are uncompensated and treated as volunteer engagement. Reviews exceeding ten hours — substantive depth-development tracks, formal mathematical audits, multi-month structured collaborations — are compensated at rates appropriate to the reviewer's discipline and seniority. Compensation is agreed at engagement scope agreement time, drawn from the platform author's personal budget for external review, and disclosed in the External Review Register entry for transparency. The compensation is not honorarium-token; it reflects market rates for the actual expertise being requested.
No co-author attribution. Substantive reviews receive named-credit attribution in the relevant pillar substantiation document or analytical framing document, with the reviewer's contribution explicitly described (which section they reviewed, what methodology they applied, what they validated or critiqued). Co-author attribution on the platform itself is not offered. The platform's authorship is intentionally singular for accountability reasons: a single named author bears responsibility for the integrated architecture, and external reviewers strengthen specific components without becoming joint owners of the overall design. This is a deliberate framing choice; reviewers who want a co-author relationship rather than a named-contribution relationship would not find this engagement structurally suitable.
External Review Register. Every external engagement — completed or in-progress — is logged in the platform's External Review Register at 09_Meta_Tracking/09_External_Review_Register.docx. Each entry records the reviewer, affiliation, items reviewed, engagement kind (A/B/C/D), compensation status, deliverable, date, and current state. The register is updated each release and is analogous in structure to the Tracked Issues Registry but tracks engagement rather than open analytical items.
What the Reviewer Receives
Documented credit. Every external review is logged in the Open Issues Registry with reviewer attribution, affiliation, the specific item or items reviewed, and the date and version of review. Reviews are public record in the platform's iteration history.
Authorship recognition where applicable. Substantive analytical contributions are attributed in the relevant pillar substantiation document or analytical framing document with explicit named credit and discipline annotation.
A working object in the reviewer's domain. The platform is structured to be referenced, not just read. A reviewer in housing economics gains an architectural reference proposal that can be cited as a contemporary example of a structured federal housing investment design; the same for every other discipline.
Policy impact contingent on platform reach. The platform is currently in production-ready candidate state. If it reaches public-facing deployment and gains policy traction, every reviewer whose work closed an item becomes part of the historical record of how the platform's parameters were validated.
How to Engage
Initial contact. Use the form on the contact page, or the email address listed there. Indicate which discipline you're reviewing in (so the right materials are sent).
Initial materials. You'll be sent the specific Open Issues Registry entry, the relevant pillar substantiation document, and any analytical framing document containing current quantitative work on the topic — typically four to seven documents totaling sixty to one hundred eighty minutes of preparatory reading.
Engagement scope agreement. Author and reviewer agree on the engagement kind (A, B, C, or D), the specific item or items in scope, the timeline, the deliverable, and the attribution and credit arrangements.
Closing. When the review is complete, the relevant Open Issues Registry entry is updated to CLOSED, the reviewer's contribution is logged in the platform's iteration narrative, the relevant pillar or analytical framing document is updated to reference the review and its findings, and the engagement is recorded in the External Engagement Plan's reviewer log.