Charter §7 revision proposal — 2026-Q3

Per the existing charter close ("commitments may be revised through the §7.2 disagreement-resolution procedure with a 30-day public-comment window"), this page proposes a revision to §7 + its sub-clauses §7.1 and §7.5, and a new §7.8. The proposal stays open for public comment before any binding change to /wiki/charter ships.

Status: Drafted, not yet published for comment

Comment window will be formally opened by editorial-board decision; dates published here when set. The current charter §7 remains in force unchanged until then.

Why this revision is being proposed

Policy Window has spent five iters cataloguing AI-governance evidence — 29 instruments × 24 topics × ~580 coverage cells with primary-source citations. The current charter §7 absolutely prohibits lobbying on behalf of any client; that rule was the right call for the catalog-construction phase, where editorial neutrality bought credibility with regulators, civil society, and academic citers alike.

The reconfiguration plan (iter-316, ~/.claude/plans/) identifies that the catalog is now structurally constrained from converting evidence into policy outcomes. Twenty-four persona audits converged on the same diagnosis: researchers can't cite PW as primary evidence, procurement can't anchor contract clauses, regulators can't track implementing-act lineage, civil society can't extract harm narratives, journalists can't get briefing packs in five minutes. Peer platforms (CSET, OECD.AI, Stanford HAI, Lex Machina) show that evidence-grounded advocacy is a recognised lane — distinct from ideological or client-driven lobbying.

The proposed revision permits evidence-based policy advocacy (positions reproducibly derivable from cited cells, signed by a named editor) and explicitly prohibits ideological, sponsor-driven, or covert-influence advocacy. Other §7 bright lines — no LLM body prose, no microtargeting, no auto-publication, no high-stakes individual decision support, no legal advice, no unapproved human-subject research, sponsor firewall (§4.5) — stay unchanged.

Proposed text (red-line)

§7.1 — replaces existing "Lobbying on behalf of any client" bullet

OLD: Lobbying on behalf of any client, paid or unpaid.

NEW §7.1 — Evidence-based advocacy permitted. PW MAY publish analytical positions, policy recommendations, regulatory-submission contributions, hearing-testimony evidence packs, and amicus-brief evidence appendices where:

(a) the position is grounded in primary-source evidence catalogued under the standard editorial process,
(b) the named editor or coalition signatory takes accountability,
(c) the position is publicly attributable + reproducibly derivable from the cited cells,
(d) the §4.5 sponsor firewall is observed (no editorial-conditioned funding; no per-output payment for advocacy outputs),
(e) the position is presented as evidence-grounded analysis, not as a marketing or persuasion artefact.

§7.1.a Ideologically-driven advocacy — prohibited. PW will NOT publish positions based on partisan affiliation, ideological prior, sponsor preference, or covert influence aims. Every position must trace to cited cells; positions whose only support is "we believe X" are out of scope regardless of who holds the belief.

§7.1.b Lobbying on behalf of an external client — prohibited. PW does not produce advocacy outputs branded as a client's own, ghostwritten lobbying material, or astroturfing content. PW's name + named editor must appear on every published position.

§7.1.c Disagreement-resolution still binds. §7.2 procedure applies to advocacy outputs: any party (including affected communities) may register dissent against a published position; PW publishes the dissent alongside.

§7.5 — clarifies existing "no lobbying automation" scope

OLD: §7.5 No lobbying automation. PW does not produce bulk regulatory comments, synthetic public-consultation submissions, or astroturf campaigns — at any scale, for any client.

NEW §7.5 — No automated influence at scale. PW will not produce bulk regulatory comments, synthetic public-consultation submissions, or astroturf campaigns at any scale. Per-published-advocacy-output review is mandatory — each policy brief, regulatory submission, or testimony evidence pack is reviewed and signed by a named editor before publication. The cap is one position-piece per editorial cycle per topic (no batch generation).

§7.8 — new clause: influence-tracking obligation

NEW §7.8 — Influence-tracking obligation. Where PW publishes a position or contributes to a regulatory submission, the contribution is logged at /wiki/influence-tracker with: the cited cells, the named editor, the receiving venue, the date, and a permanent ?asOf= URL. Influence is verifiable + countable, not aspirational.

What stays absolutely prohibited (unchanged from current §7)

No LLM-generated article body prose (instrument / topic / benchmark / concept articles; companion essays; briefing packs; position papers — all human-authored).
No microtargeting or per-viewer-customised content (§7.6).
No auto-publication without audited human approval.
No high-stakes individual decision support (criminal sentencing, asylum determination, medical triage).
No legal advice (§7.4).
No covert persuasion (§7.6).
No unapproved human-subject research (§7.7).
No failed-reproducibility verdicts without human replication review.
Sponsor firewall (§4.5) — cannot be bypassed for advocacy outputs.

How to submit a comment

During the 30-day comment window (dates set when the editorial board formally opens it), comments may be submitted by:

Email to hello@policywindow.org with subject "Charter §7 revision comment (2026-Q3)".
GitHub issue on the public repo (link from /wiki/charter §6).
Dissent under the existing §7.2 disagreement-resolution procedure (which binds this revision the same way it binds advocacy outputs once §7.1 is in force).

All received comments will be logged + responded to + (where author consents) published alongside the editorial-board response. No comment is dispositive; the editorial board makes the final decision after weighing the public record.

Charter §7 revision proposal — 2026-Q3

Why this revision is being proposed

Proposed text (red-line)

§7.1 — replaces existing "Lobbying on behalf of any client" bullet

OLD: Lobbying on behalf of any client, paid or unpaid.

(a) the position is grounded in primary-source evidence catalogued under the standard editorial process,
(b) the named editor or coalition signatory takes accountability,
(c) the position is publicly attributable + reproducibly derivable from the cited cells,
(d) the §4.5 sponsor firewall is observed (no editorial-conditioned funding; no per-output payment for advocacy outputs),
(e) the position is presented as evidence-grounded analysis, not as a marketing or persuasion artefact.

§7.5 — clarifies existing "no lobbying automation" scope

OLD: §7.5 No lobbying automation. PW does not produce bulk regulatory comments, synthetic public-consultation submissions, or astroturf campaigns — at any scale, for any client.

§7.8 — new clause: influence-tracking obligation

What stays absolutely prohibited (unchanged from current §7)

No LLM-generated article body prose (instrument / topic / benchmark / concept articles; companion essays; briefing packs; position papers — all human-authored).

No microtargeting or per-viewer-customised content (§7.6).

No auto-publication without audited human approval.

No high-stakes individual decision support (criminal sentencing, asylum determination, medical triage).

No legal advice (§7.4).

No covert persuasion (§7.6).

No unapproved human-subject research (§7.7).

No failed-reproducibility verdicts without human replication review.

Sponsor firewall (§4.5) — cannot be bypassed for advocacy outputs.

How to submit a comment

During the 30-day comment window (dates set when the editorial board formally opens it), comments may be submitted by:

Email to hello@policywindow.org with subject "Charter §7 revision comment (2026-Q3)".

GitHub issue on the public repo (link from /wiki/charter §6).

Dissent under the existing §7.2 disagreement-resolution procedure (which binds this revision the same way it binds advocacy outputs once §7.1 is in force).