How CivicDraft Works
A transparent, structured process that turns public expertise into stronger legislation — without the chaos of traditional comment periods.
The policy lifecycle
Author imports or drafts a policy
A policy author uploads an existing document — Word, PDF, or plain text — and CivicDraft automatically parses it into structured sections. Each section becomes independently editable, commentable, and trackable. Authors can also start from scratch using the built-in rich text editor.
- Supports .docx, PDF, and plain text import
- Headings are parsed into navigable sections
- Rich text editor with tables, images, and formatting
- Add metadata: policy domain, subtitle, summary
The public discovers and reads
Once published, the policy appears in the public browser. Anyone can read the full document, navigate between sections, and see its current status. Published policies are organized by domain and status — open for input, recently updated, or formally adopted.
- Filterable by domain: education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
- Status badges: open for input, updated, adopted
- Table of contents for easy navigation
- Star and watch policies to track updates
Contributors propose targeted edits
Instead of leaving vague comments, contributors propose specific changes to specific sections. The proposal system shows a side-by-side diff of what the contributor wants to change, along with their rationale. Contributors can also propose adding new content, removing sections, reordering content, or renaming sections.
- Section-level edit proposals with side-by-side diffs
- Support for additions, removals, reorders, and title changes
- Required rationale explains the 'why' behind each change
- Contributors build a public track record of proposals
Discussion and deliberation
Threaded discussions can be opened on any section of the policy. Contributors, authors, and reviewers engage in focused dialogue — not a scrolling wall of comments. Discussions are tied to specific content, so context is never lost.
- Threaded replies keep conversations organized
- Discussions linked to specific sections
- Open and resolved statuses for tracking progress
- Anyone can participate — not just proposal authors
Authors review and decide
The author reviews each proposal individually. They can approve (merge the change into the document), request revisions (ask the contributor to adjust), or decline with an explanation. Co-authors and invited reviewers can weigh in before the author makes a final decision.
- Approve, request changes, or decline each proposal
- Invite co-authors and reviewers for second opinions
- Per-proposal comment threads for discussion
- Nothing changes in the document without author approval
Every change is tracked forever
When a proposal is accepted, a new revision is created. The full history of the document — every change, who proposed it, who approved it, and when — is permanently accessible. Anyone can compare any two versions side by side.
- Numbered revisions with full diff history
- Attribution for every accepted change
- Compare any two versions side by side
- Complete audit trail for transparency
Adoption locks the record
When a policy is formally adopted by an institution, the author can lock the document. The final version is preserved alongside a link to the official record. The contribution history remains accessible, but no further changes can be proposed.
- Adopted policies are read-only with an official badge
- Link to the official adopted document or record
- Full contribution history preserved for accountability
- Adoption metadata: institution, date, official URL
Design principles
CivicDraft is designed around core beliefs about how public input should work.
Authors retain control
Public input is valuable, but the author is accountable for the final document. No change goes live without explicit approval. This is collaboration, not mob editing.
Structure beats volume
A focused, section-level edit with a clear rationale is worth more than a hundred vague comments. CivicDraft prioritizes quality of input over quantity.
Transparency builds trust
Every proposal, review, and revision is public and traceable. When citizens can see exactly how their input was considered, trust in the process grows.
Expertise should be visible
Contributors build public profiles with expertise areas, track records, and verification badges. Authors can assess credibility before accepting changes.
Traditional public comment vs. CivicDraft
| Traditional | CivicDraft | |
|---|---|---|
| Input format | Unstructured emails and comment boxes | Section-level edits with rationale |
| Visibility | Comments often invisible to other commenters | All contributions public and threaded |
| Tracking | No way to know if your input was considered | Every proposal gets a decision: approved, revised, or declined |
| History | Final document with no visible revision trail | Full version history with diffs and attribution |
| Identity | Anonymous or unverified commenters | Contributor profiles with expertise and verification |
| Author control | Authors may or may not respond | Authors review and decide on every proposal |