Solution Database / Government
Public consultation commitment tracker
Promises made during consultation disappear after the report is published. Follow what government promised after listening.
01The offer
For municipal policy engagement teams, turn approved consultation responses and agency commitments into consultation follow-through register. Address this specific problem: promises made during consultation disappear after the report is published. The aim: follow what government promised after listening. The pilot tests whether that benefit holds up against reviewer effort and real operating costs.
- For
- Municipal policy engagement teams
- Takes in
- Approved consultation responses and agency commitments
- Delivers
- Consultation follow-through register
- Message
- Follow what government promised after listening. Demonstrate the result with track one completed consultation for municipal policy engagement teams. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.
- Lead magnet
- Track one completed consultation
02How it works
- Extract stated commitments
- Link consultation evidence
- Assign agency owners
- Track due dates
- Draft progress summaries
- Export reviewed updates
Workflow
The buyer creates a project, supplies approved consultation responses and agency commitments, and confirms scope and access. The working sequence is: 1. Extract stated commitments. 2. Link consultation evidence. 3. Assign agency owners. 4. Track due dates. 5. Draft progress summaries. 6. Export reviewed updates. Users correct extracted facts, resolve flagged uncertainties and approve the final consultation follow-through register before use. Retain source links and a version history for the next cycle.
AI and people
Extract commitments without turning suggestions into promises. Keep model suggestions separate from verified facts. Link factual outputs to authorized input evidence and show missing information explicitly. Use deterministic checks for counts, dates, identifiers and arithmetic where applicable. A designated reviewer validates consequential outputs and signs off the delivered result.
Screens
Key screens: Commitment register, Owner updates, Public draft. Use a queue or timeline as the opening view, with clear owners, dates and current states. Each case opens into its source context, proposed actions and discussion. Give external participants a limited form or status page. Make the next required action visible without opening every record. Open with commitment register; move into owner updates for the detailed task; finish in public draft for review and handoff. Show the source record, uncertainty and approval status beside each proposed output.
Admin
Role permissions, task ownership, deadlines, reminders, approval gates, exception handling, action history, duplicate prevention and reversible configuration. Include organization-scoped access, named project owners, review queues, usage limits, export history and retention settings. Never reuse private customer material for other accounts without permission.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Shared inboxes, spreadsheets, task boards and existing workflow automation products. Position this concept around follow what government promised after listening. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.
Where this wins
Customer-specific workflow rules, reliable handoffs, operational history and integrations that make the service part of daily work. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around follow what government promised after listening. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.
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: promises made during consultation disappear after the report is published.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Local-government associations and civic consultancies. Metrics that prove it works: Unassigned commitments and update preparation time.
Paid pilot
Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run track one completed consultation and deliver consultation follow-through register. Compare unassigned commitments and update preparation time with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.
06Execution plan
MVP
Costed pilot: One consultation; officials approve public updates. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: extract stated commitments; link consultation evidence. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: assign agency owners. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of consultation follow-through register. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from municipal policy engagement teams and inspect how they handle promises made during consultation disappear after the report is published. Week 2: prepare track one completed consultation using authorized or synthetic material. Week 3: share the demonstration through local-government associations and civic consultancies and seek one bounded paid pilot. Week 4: measure unassigned commitments and update preparation time, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.
After the pilot
After paying customers repeatedly accept consultation follow-through register, automate track due dates; draft progress summaries; export reviewed updates. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. One consultation; officials approve public updates.
Retention
Build repeat use around consultation follow-through register. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on unassigned commitments and update preparation time. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.
Integrations
Official publications, agency document stores and approved service workflows. Calendars, email, task managers and relevant business records. Use draft actions and supervised handoffs first, then enable only specifically authorized writes. Begin with uploads and exports of approved consultation responses and agency commitments. Any named system or connector is a candidate requiring current access and compatibility checks; no live connection is included by default.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: extract stated commitments; link consultation evidence. Manual review in the loop. | 7 days | $11,500 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 8 days | $11,500 |
| Full product | Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 3 weeks | $16,000 |
| Total | $39,000 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $50–$100 | $40–$90 | $90–$190 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $190–$380 | $280–$560 | $470–$940 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 750-2,500 setup plus USD 200-800 monthly for one bounded workflow and team. Cap case volume and implementation scope. Larger operational integrations need separate quotes. Prices are hypotheses. For this buyer, package the first sale around track one completed consultation and the defined consultation follow-through register. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.
Cost drivers
Workflow configuration, integration maintenance, model calls, notification delivery, exception support and monitoring. Initial validation additionally budgets for public-service reviewer workshops. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.
Safeguards
Preserve official source versions, accessibility and audit records. Confirm agency-specific procurement, records and data handling requirements during discovery. One consultation; officials approve public updates. Require appropriate access and publication approval. Preserve source material, label AI drafts and make corrections traceable. Measure false positives and missed cases alongside speed.
Take it further
Newly authored additional batch of 210 concepts, dated 2026-09-22, for later import. Checked against the existing 413 catalog for exact title and ID duplication, with editorial review of overlap. Demand, differentiation, pricing, build hours, setup costs and integration feasibility are unvalidated planning hypotheses. Category inspiration links are inherited taxonomy references, not evidence that these concepts were covered there.