Start from experience
Pick the campus, worker, community, rights, or institutional lens you know best.
Subject 04 / Public-review guide
Start with the question you know best.
Start with the people, place, or decision you understand. Test one claim against real experience, name what is missing, and suggest the smallest change that would make the draft clearer or more accountable.
Public review only. Asking a question or sharing feedback does not imply endorsement, certification, confidential access, or sign-on.
In plain language
A useful review in one minute
A strong review does not need to sound technical. It identifies a real concern, explains who is affected, states what evidence or protection is missing, and recommends a concrete change.
Examine one claim
Ask what could fail, who could be excluded, and what proof would make the claim credible.
Make effects visible
Identify the people, services, rights, places, or resources that carry the risk.
Propose a usable change
Suggest a clearer sentence, stronger safeguard, evidence threshold, decision right, or no-go condition.
Interactive question finder
Choose the perspective you can ground.
The page will give you one focused prompt and carry it into the website review form. You can answer in ordinary language and skip GitHub entirely.
01
Student or campus
Does the draft protect learning, authorship, data, workers, and meaningful campus governance?
- What should you examine?
- Campus AI can become a shortcut around clear learning rules, consent, worker input, or human appeal.
- What can ground the review?
- A course, advising, admissions, proctoring, support, procurement, or student-data situation you have seen.
- Whose experience matters?
- Students, faculty, campus workers, applicants, and people needing accessibility or support services.
- What makes the answer useful?
- Name one right, rule, notice, appeal, or decision role that should be explicit before deployment.
Your focused review question
Which campus safeguard is unclear, missing, or too weak to work in practice?Answer on this site
Formal public guide
Question sets under review
Use these prompts as a menu. Reviewers are invited to answer one or several; completing every question is not expected.
Review principle
Critique should test whether the proposal is clear, complete, feasible, resistant to capture, and accountable to affected people.
Purpose, scope, and legitimacy
- What problem does this draft solve well?
- What important problem or affected group is missing?
- Which claims are too broad or need clearer evidence?
- What would make the proposal easier to misuse?
- What should remain public, independent, or outside implementer control?
- What would make participation meaningful rather than symbolic?
- What are the first three changes you would make?
Evidence, place, and no-go terms
- Which infrastructure impacts must be measured locally?
- What baseline is needed for energy, water, land, labor, or service effects?
- Who needs notice, voice, appeal, or stop authority?
- What proof should be public before a benefit claim is made?
- Which harms cannot be traded for a payment or promised benefit?
- What independent review should be required?
- What would make a pilot too risky to begin?
Learning, work, data, and authority
- Are student authorship and learning integrity clear enough?
- Where should AI use be prohibited or disclosed?
- What student-data uses require explicit governance?
- What notice and appeal rights are needed?
- How should faculty and workers shape procurement and deployment?
- What safeguards prevent surveillance or hidden discipline?
- What campus benefit should be visible and reviewable?
Measurement, decision rights, and delivery
- What counts as a real gain?
- What costs, quality effects, and transferred work must be included?
- Who should decide how verified gains are used?
- Which benefit pathways are meaningful in this setting?
- What protections cannot be waived?
- What should a public receipt show?
- When should a benefit claim be withdrawn?
Proof, review, and correction
- What is the minimum credible evidence for this claim?
- Who can verify it independently?
- What should be public without exposing sensitive data?
- How often should results be reviewed?
- What correction, repair, or no-go response follows failure?
Claim
A statement about a benefit, safeguard, outcome, or level of alignment that should be tested.
Minimum proof
The least evidence needed before a claim can be treated as credible or shared publicly.
Reputation cover
Language that makes an actor appear responsible without enforceable safeguards or reviewable results.
One focused contribution
What is the first change that would make this draft more credible?
Explain the concern, who is affected, and the evidence, right, safeguard, or wording you recommend.
Share feedback on this siteView the GitHub source record
GitHub is optional and public. Use it for a source edit or public issue discussion.