Civil society workflow surface
GSA Generative AI and Specialized Computing Infrastructure Acquisition Resource Guide — harm narratives from affected communities
This is the structured channel for civil-society partner organizations to contribute accounts of how this instrument's coverage gaps, carve-outs, or silent classifications affect specific affected communities. Submissions are peer-reviewed by Policy Window editors before publication; attribution is always to the submitting organization (not to Policy Window editors — the editor's role here is review, not authorship).
Consent + anonymisation defaults apply per charter §7.7: informed consent from named individuals, anonymisation by default, no covert observational research. Submissions that look like influence operations (per §7.6) are rejected.
Published narratives
No narratives published yet for this instrument. Be the first to submit.
Submit a narrative
Submissions are scoped to this instrument (gsa-ai-acquisition-guide). Required fields are marked. Maximum narrative length 3000 characters to keep the editorial-review surface tractable; longer accounts are best published on your own site with a link back from a shorter excerpt here.
Editorial review process
- Submission. Your narrative lands in pending-review state; you receive (and we record) the editorial-contact email so we can ask clarifying questions.
- Editor reviews. A Policy Window editor reviews the submission against charter §7.6 (no covert persuasion) and §7.7 (informed consent, anonymisation, no unapproved human-subject research), and against accuracy of the underlying coverage-cell claim. We may ask for additional anonymisation or primary-source links.
- Publication or rejection.Accepted submissions are published with attribution to the submitting organization, dated, and visible on this page. Rejected submissions get a reason; you're welcome to revise + resubmit.
Charter constraints on this surface
§7.6 · No covert persuasion or political microtargeting
Policy Window does not deploy AI for influence operations. All editorial output is signed (by the editorial board for catalog content; by the expert validation bench for research-module content) and dated. No anonymous content, no per-audience-tailored persuasion, no political microtargeting, no covert-influence operations. This subsumes the existing §7 microtargeting bright line and clarifies that it applies to every product layer (free catalog, paid exports, paid research modules).
§7.7 · No unapproved human-subject research
The on-demand expert validation bench conducts expert and stakeholder interviews when a customer engagement requires it. Every such interview requires: (1) informed consent in writing from each participant, (2) declared data retention (default: structured summary retained; raw recordings deleted after the validation cycle), (3) anonymisation by default (named attribution only with explicit per-instance consent), (4) a written protocol shared with the participant before the interview, and (5) a named expert researcher accountable for the protocol. No covert observational research; no human-subject work without an approved protocol; no synthetic-respondent substitution.
Full text: /wiki/charter.