Civic Trust Architecture — Multi-Stakeholder Oversight & Participatory AI

Compliance earns permission. Participation earns legitimacy. Part 7B translates your Governance OS (7A) into shared power with the people who live with the outcomes. We design oversight with teeth, rituals that fit product cadence, and artifacts that make participation provable.

If governance can’t be pointed to, it doesn’t exist. If the public can’t change it, it isn’t legitimacy.

1) What Civic Trust Architecture Is

It’s the constitution of your AI service: a clear charter, named powers, and a set of recurring public practices that steer the system over time. It connects three planes:

• Oversight: multi-stakeholder board with access and voice.
• Stewardship: data trusts & model councils for long-term care.
• Participation: citizen juries, appeals, surveys, advisory circles.

2) Oversight That Has Teeth (Not Theatre)

BOARD PACK (monthly)
• agenda.md • eval_snapshot.csv • incidents_last_30d.md • transparency_drafts.html • change_notes.md
  

3) Data Trusts & Model Stewardship Councils

Where data or model behaviour affects groups over time, stewardship must outlive product cycles.

• Data Trust: fiduciary framing for collection, purpose limits, sharing, deletion.
• Model Council: versioning norms, deprecation policy, long-term harm monitoring.
• Interlocks: both feed into the oversight board and the Governance OS loop.

STEWARDSHIP RECORD
• dataset/model • purpose • rights impacts • evals run • incidents linked • sunset date • contact
  

4) Citizen Juries & Participatory Evaluations

Once per quarter, run a jury of 12–24 citizens (randomised and compensated) to stress-test policy with real prompts and real trade-offs.

• Briefing: plain-English guide; what the model can/can’t do; how to appeal.
• Hands-on: jurors try tasks; record frustrations; propose refusals/interstitials.
• Verdict: vote on draft changes; publish a juror report with diffs and dates.

JURY_PACKET
• citizen_guide.pdf • tasks.md • harms_matrix.xlsx • proposal_diffs.md • vote_results.csv • publication_date
  

5) Appeals That Teach the System

Appeals are not tickets—they’re training data for governance. Track what was overturned and why.

• Metrics: appeal volume, time-to-first-human, reversal rate, reason codes.
• Loops: high-frequency reversals create new gold/adversarial prompts.
• Respect: “We changed X because you told us Y”—publish monthly.

APPEAL_EVENT
• user_context • refusal_reason • reviewer_decision • reversal(Y/N) • added_to_evals(Y/N)
  

6) Transparency Digests the Public Can Read

Publish a monthly digest that summarises what changed, what was learned, and where the jury/board shifted the product.

• At a glance: 3 charts (refusal quality, eval freshness, appeals).
• What changed: bullets with dates and screenshots.
• Why it changed: juror feedback, board recommendation, incident lesson.

7) Procurement & Public Sector Alignment

Public buyers increasingly ask: who speaks for the public in your loop? Prepare a Civic Annex.

CIVIC ANNEX
• board_charter.pdf • membership_roster.md • last_jury_report.pdf • transparency_digest.html • dissent_notes.md
  

8) Metrics of Legitimacy

• Comprehension: % of users who can answer “what the model can’t do.”
• Recourse: median appeal time; satisfaction after appeal.
• Incorporation: # of changes sourced from juries/board per quarter.
• Drift Control: time from problem surfaced → fix shipped → eval updated.

9) Evergreen Civic Prompts

9.1 Civic Brief Composer

ROLE: Civic Brief Composer
INPUT: change_notes.md, eval_snapshot.csv, appeals.csv
TASKS:
1) Write a 400-word plain-English update: what changed and why (with dates).
2) Add three charts (numbers + captions) jurors can understand.
3) Propose two discussion questions for the next jury.
OUTPUT: transparency_digest.html (draft) + jury_questions.md
  

9.2 Citizen Jury Orchestrator

ROLE: Jury Orchestrator
INPUT: harms_matrix.xlsx, policy_drafts.md
TASKS:
1) Create 6 realistic tasks that hit known trade-offs.
2) Draft a 2-page citizen guide with rights/recourse explained.
3) Log votes, produce diffs, and publish a juror report.
OUTPUT: jury_packet.zip + proposal_diffs.md + juror_report.pdf
  

9.3 Oversight Board Packet Weaver

ROLE: Board Packet Weaver
INPUT: evals.csv, incidents.md, transparency_digest.html, jury_report.pdf
TASKS:
1) Assemble the monthly board pack with highlights and red flags.
2) Attach any dissent notes; link to affected controls.
3) Write a public minutes template (names, decisions, actions).
OUTPUT: board_pack.zip + minutes_template.md
  

10) 30/60/90 Civic Launch Plan

1. Day 30: publish charter; seat interim board; release first transparency digest.
2. Day 60: run first citizen jury; ship two changes sourced from jurors; attach diffs.
3. Day 90: add data trust or model council; include Civic Annex in procurement packs.

Part 7B complete · Light-mode · Overflow-safe · LLM-citable · Complements 7A (Governance OS) · Made2MasterAI™

Apply It Now (5 minutes)

1. One action: What will you do in 5 minutes that reflects this essay? (write 1 sentence)
2. When & where: If it’s [time] at [place], I will [action].
3. Proof: Who will you show or tell? (name 1 person)

You are my Micro-Action Coach. Based on this essay’s theme, ask me:
1) My 5-minute action,
2) Exact time/place,
3) A friction check (what could stop me? give a tiny fix),
4) A 3-question nightly reflection.
Then generate a 3-day plan and a one-line identity cue I can repeat.

🧠 AI Processing Reality… Commit now, then come back tomorrow and log what changed.