Solution Database / Government
Government document simplification
Important guidance is difficult for residents to understand. Meaning-preserving simplification with side-by-side policy review.
01The offer
For public agency communications teams, turn approved public documents and intended audience needs into reviewed plain-language public guidance. Address the recurring problem: important guidance is difficult for residents to understand. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Public agency communications teams
- Takes in
- Approved public documents and intended audience needs
- Delivers
- Reviewed plain-language public guidance
- Message
- Government document simplification for public agency communications teams. Meaning-preserving simplification with side-by-side policy review. Demonstrate the claim through a before-and-after benefits information leaflet.
- Lead magnet
- A before-and-after benefits information leaflet
02How it works
- Identify complex passages
- Explain defined terms
- Preserve conditions
- Restructure instructions
- Produce summaries
- Track policy-owner approval
Workflow
Collect a structured brief and source material, identify unanswered questions, approve an outline, generate a draft, verify claims, gather reviewer edits, approve a final version and export the agreed formats. Start with approved public documents and intended audience needs and finish with reviewed plain-language public guidance.
AI and people
Extract and organize information, propose structure, draft prose and adapt approved content to audiences. Attach evidence to factual claims. Keep names, dates, amounts and quoted wording linked to their source. Editors resolve ambiguity and approve publication.
Screens
Key screens: Source comparison, plain-language editor, review checklist. Use a project list and editorial calendar beside a document editor. Keep original material and supporting passages in a collapsible side panel. Show outline, draft, review and approved stages. Provide tracked edits, comments, version comparisons and an export preview that reflects the final delivery format. In this product, the first view is source comparison, followed by plain-language editor and review checklist.
Admin
Client workspaces, source permissions, editorial assignments, change history, reviewer comments, approval gates, revision allowances and export templates.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Writers, editors, agencies, internal document templates and general-purpose chat tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: meaning-preserving simplification with side-by-side policy review. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
Customer-approved terminology, reusable structures, source libraries and editorial feedback tied to a specific audience and recurring publishing workflow. For this solution, build around meaning-preserving simplification with side-by-side policy review. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
Government teams are adopting AI for exactly this kind of repeatable work, and the cost of language and vision models has dropped far enough that a narrow, reviewed workflow pays back quickly. Rising compliance and audit expectations make a documented, reviewable process worth more than an ad hoc one. The buyer already feels the problem: important guidance is difficult for residents to understand.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Public communications consultancies. Metrics that prove it works: Comprehension testing, policy corrections.
Paid pilot
Complete one existing brief using the customer’s actual sources. Record reviewer edits, factual corrections and preparation time. Ask the same buyer to commission a second comparable deliverable. For this solution, use approved public documents and intended audience needs and evaluate reviewed plain-language public guidance. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for comprehension testing, policy corrections. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
06Execution plan
MVP
Begin with public agency communications teams and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: identify complex passages; explain defined terms. Provide operator assistance for the third module: preserve conditions. Deliver reviewed plain-language public guidance through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: public agency communications teams. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a before-and-after benefits information leaflet. Week 3: present it through public communications consultancies and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review comprehension testing, policy corrections, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: restructure instructions; produce summaries; track policy-owner approval. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
Retention
Maintain the approved source and voice library, schedule recurring editorial work, and expand into additional formats only after the core deliverable is repeatedly accepted.
Integrations
Official publications, agency document stores and approved service workflows. Document storage, word processor export, content management systems and approved publishing channels. Pilot with uploads and downloadable drafts before adding write integrations. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: identify complex passages; explain defined terms. Manual review in the loop. | 6 days | $11,000 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 7 days | $14,500 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: restructure instructions; produce summaries; track policy-owner approval. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 3 weeks | $20,500 |
| Total | $46,000 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $50–$100 | $70–$140 | $120–$240 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $190–$380 | $700–$1,400 | $890–$1,780 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 400-1,500 for a tightly scoped initial content package. Convert repeated work to a monthly retainer with explicit deliverable and revision limits. Specialist review and substantial research are separately scoped. Prices are hypotheses.
Cost drivers
Research and interview time, transcription, model usage, factual verification, subject-matter review, editing and revisions.
Safeguards
Preserve official source versions, accessibility and audit records. Confirm agency-specific procurement, records and data handling requirements during discovery. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.
Take it further
Concept proposal expanded from the 315-solution conversation. Demand, pricing, differentiation, build scope and integration feasibility are hypotheses, not verified market findings. Category link is inspiration rather than evidence of business viability.