One-pagers by audience
Three audiences, one page each. The adviser one-pager is published separately; these complete the set.
For the drafter (OPC and instructing officers)
You will not use our prose and should not - external clause text is a statement of intent at best, and we know it. What we built for you:
The defined terms (glossary): each definition written against testability, accountability and durability, with the selection rationale attached so you can discard the term and keep the reasoning. Deliberately excluded from operative use: "artificial intelligence" (no testable referent), "autonomous" (status claim), "human in the loop" (satisfiable by a rubber stamp) - the exclusion arguments may be more useful to you than the definitions.
Two instruction sets in your format (drafting instructions template): the general data-grant provisions and the automated-determination safeguards, stated as objectives, mechanics, edge cases and EM-ready worked examples. The edge cases are where our operational experience is doing work you cannot get from a policy paper: bulk determinations, delegated authors, triage that never becomes a determination, legacy records.
One asymmetry worth your attention: a grant missing any mandatory element is unenforceable by the grantee, enforceable by the grantor. It is the mechanism that makes the rest self-policing, and it drafts in a sentence.
Everything is dated and versioned; if a definition breaks under a fact pattern we missed, the contact page reaches the person who will publish the correction.
For the regulator
Conferral is coming to you, and the practical question is what your assessors do on day one. Built for that question:
The conformity test procedure: five worked tests against real record structures, including the four-step default probe that tests, in minutes, for the exact failure mode the Robodebt Royal Commission documented at scale, and revoke-and-probe for consent obligations. Each test is stated at three conformity classes - documentary, operational, continuous - so the same obligation scales from a records request to a verification a relying party could run themselves.
The one-question discipline for the highest class: could a party that trusts no one here confirm this claim? If the answer requires trusting anyone, it is not continuous conformity, whatever the paperwork says.
The schema annex: the field structures the tests run against, with deployment status marked per field, so your technical staff can distinguish what exists in production from what is proposed - because we marked it, not because they had to find out.
And the economics: the design aims at the shortest distance between a stated obligation and a verifiable one - machine-verifiable conformity turns weeks against paperwork into hours against structures, and reference-implementation listing (open-source included) makes compliance the cheap path. Because the working implementation already exists to copy, a small deployer can aim to reach documentary conformity in an afternoon rather than a procurement cycle - a target, not a promise - which moves your enforcement effort from the compliant-but-buried to the actually non-compliant.
For unions and civil society
Most of this kit is addressed to government; this page is the case that its adoption is in your members' and your communities' interest, and what to demand in consultation.
"Every determination has an author" protects two people: the person the decision is about - who gains notice, a stated basis, and review by someone with the power to change the outcome - and the worker in the loop, who gains a record proving what they decided, what they were shown, and what they declined to adopt. When a system fails, the author field is also how responsibility stops rolling downhill onto the most junior person present. Human review is defined with the power to substitute, because review without it is a rubber stamp with a wage attached.
Consent as a record with five elements means a member can see who may use their data, what data, for what purpose, until when, and how to stop it - and a missing element voids the company's rights, not theirs.
The never-automate schedule - decisions over liberty, force, mercy and the framing of law that no system may hold regardless of consent - is the line worth defending hardest in consultation, because it will be the most quietly contested.
Civic compute proposes the capability itself as public infrastructure: a staffed community node in every LGA, on the library and community-broadcasting pattern, so access does not divide along the lines everything else divides along.
What to demand in the process itself: submissions published, meetings logged, adopted text attributed to its source. You will be outspent in this consultation by orders of magnitude; openness of the process is the equaliser, and it costs the government nothing to grant.
Written with model assistance. Read and edited by a human - though I'm not an editor, so tell me what I've missed: get in touch. Parts of this were generated; all of it was read, checked and meant. Feedback is welcome and gets used.
Reviewed and checked by the human author: 2026-07-20.