The proposed clauses above are the text formally under comment and are unchanged. The refinements below (R1–R6) were raised in an internal drafting review and are published here for the same public comment. They tightenthe revision — R1–R3 fix a drafting contradiction and make two prohibitions harder to evade; R4–R6 add governance guardrails (a sunset, a board-size gate on operative effect, and enforcement teeth). None loosens it. The editorial board decides at window close which to fold into the adopted text; if any materially changes the proposal, a further short comment window opens per "What happens after the window".
R1 · §7.1(b) — close the accountability seam (drafting fix)
As drafted, §7.1(b) vests accountability in "the named editor orcoalition signatory", but §7.1.b requires PW's name + named editor on every position. The "or" lets a coalition co-signatory stand in for the PW editor — the exact dilution §7.1.b forbids. Proposed:
(b) the named PW subject editor takes personal accountability, andany coalition co-signatories are additionally named — PW's name and its named editor appear on every published position without exception (§7.1.b).
R2 · §7.1(e) + §7.1.a — make "analysis, not persuasion" testable
The analysis-vs-persuasion line is the trust firewall but is currently subjective, and §7.1.a's "only support is ‘we believe X’" test is easy to evade (almost any position carries some citation). Proposed operationalisation:
(e) the position is presented as evidence-grounded analysis. A recommendation is permitted only where a neutral domain expert, reading the cited cells, would find them sufficient and proportionate to support it. Where a recommendation depends on a contestable value premise (a risk-tolerance choice, a rights trade-off, a distributional judgment), PW states that premise explicitly and presents the strongest opposing view.
§7.1.a (strengthened). A position is ideologically-driven — and out of scope — where (i) the cited evidence, read by a neutral domain expert, is insufficient to support it; (ii) it omits material catalogued evidence that cuts against it (selective citation); or (iii) it rests on a value premise PW has not stated explicitly and paired with the strongest opposing view. Tracing a position to some cited cells is necessary but not sufficient — the evidence must be proportionate to the claim.
R3 · §7.1 definitions — pin the load-bearing terms (new)
§7.1.a/b and the §7.5 cap hinge on undefined terms; a clause that permits advocacy is only as strong as its definitions. Proposed additions:
- Client — any external party that commissions, pays for, or conditions funding on a specific advocacy output or its conclusion. A party that merely requestsPW consider a topic, instrument, or correction (already permitted under §7.1 "what no lobbying does NOT mean") is not a client.
- Coalition co-signatory— a named external organisation that endorses a PW-authored, PW-initiated position. It may be added to a position; it can never replace PW's named editor accountability (§7.1.b).
- Editorial cycle— a calendar quarter. The §7.5 cap ("one position-piece per editorial cycle per topic") is measured per calendar quarter per catalogue topic.
- Position-piece (advocacy output) — one distinct published advocacy artefact of any type listed in §7.1. Each counts once against the §7.5 cap and each triggers the §7.8 logging obligation.
The remaining three (R4–R6) are governance-structure additions rather than clause-wording fixes — they bound the revision's risk given the editorial board is still in formation (currently 1 of 6 slots filled):
R4 · §7.1 sunset & re-adoption (new governance clause)
The most consequential change PW can make should not outlive the board that adopts it. Proposed:
§7.1 sunset & re-adoption. §7.1 as revised (with §7.1.a–§7.1.c) is reviewed 12 months after its adoption date. Absent affirmative re-adoption by an editorial board of ≥3 named subject editorsbefore that date, §7.1 reverts to the prior absolute prohibition ("Lobbying on behalf of any client, paid or unpaid"). The review and any re-adoption follow the §7.2 procedure with a public-comment window.
R5 · §7.1 operative threshold — separate adoption from effect (new)
Adopting the wording should not by itself switch advocacy on while the board is a single person. This lets the wording be banked now without prematurely enabling the surface. Proposed:
§7.1 operative threshold. Adoption of this wording does not by itself authorise any advocacy output. No position-piece is published under §7.1 until the editorial board reaches ≥3 named subject editors (the §8 amendment threshold). Until then, §7.1 stands as adopted text whose operative effect is suspended, with the suspension shown on /wiki/editorial-board.
R6 · §7.8 — give the influence-tracking obligation teeth + full scope
As drafted, §7.8 is an obligation with no consequence and a trigger narrower than §7.1's artefact list. Proposed:
§7.8 (strengthened). (i) Logging is contemporaneous — within 7 daysof the position's publication or the submission's filing (mirrors the §4.5 funder-disclosure window). (ii) The obligation covers every§7.1 advocacy artefact (analytical position, policy recommendation, regulatory-submission contribution, hearing-testimony evidence pack, amicus evidence appendix) — not only "a position or a regulatory submission". (iii) An advocacy output that ships without its §7.8 log entry is a charter breach, published per the §4.5 breach-disclosure rule — making the obligation self-enforcing.
§7.2 30-day public comment — superseded by early adoption on 2026-06-03 (see the Decision above)
Window opened 2026-05-31; was scheduled to close 2026-06-30. The revision was instead adopted early by founder decision on 2026-06-03; comment nonetheless remains open under §7.2, and this red-line diff + the decision record are retained at this URL permanently.