Most policy coverage reports intent; what governs is operative language and status. This is research for the staffer, the implementation analyst and the reporter who need the instrument as written — proposed, enacted or in force — the agency that holds the authority, what implementation actually requires by when, and every position mapped by who holds it and what leverage they have, without the analysis taking a side.
The first screen of the Policy workbench, as the app lists it. Every scan comes back graded, sourced and exportable.
Each one is a question a specialist actually brings, and each is answered by a scan this domain carries — not a generic report with the name swapped in.
“What does the operative text actually do, and what stage is the instrument really at?”
“Which agency holds the authority, and what does implementation require, by when?”
“Who holds which position on this, and what leverage do they actually have?”
“What was obligated against this program, and where did the money land?”
Every judgment carries a grade for how it is actually known, every figure carries who reported it, and the structured record below is read on every scan before the model writes a word.
41 first-tier sources for policy, and 20 blocked outright. Search results are one input; every figure is graded on where it came from, not on being found. How the grades work →
Scale here is policy weight — the jurisdictions, the budgets and the constituencies a connection reaches — and Complexity is how contested and uncertain the path from text to effect still is.
Small policy weight, easy to understand. Standard legislative and regulatory processes explain the connection.
Meaningful legislative weight and the implications are clear. Established precedent applies.
Meaningful stakes with real uncertainty. Competing stakeholder interests, jurisdictional questions, or regulatory tradeoffs make the outcome hard to predict.
Very high stakes at national or cross-jurisdictional scale. The sheer legislative magnitude makes this one of the most important connections, regardless of complexity.
No precedent. A fundamental shift in the governance landscape that existing frameworks may not cover.
When policy weight grows to national or cross-jurisdictional scale, FLOW C reclassifies to FLOW D immediately. The priority shifts from 'analyze carefully' to 'mobilize response.'
National policy weight means FLOW D regardless of complexity. A straightforward regulation affecting millions of people is FLOW D, not FLOW A.
FLOW S requires conditions that fall entirely outside existing policy frameworks — max 1-2 per analysis. The test: do existing legislative and regulatory mechanisms apply at all?
One vocabulary across every domain — a FLOW D here reads at the same weight as a FLOW D in any other — so the classification travels, and so does your judgment. The framework in full →
7 ways in, then the rest of the catalog organised as the Policy workbench organises it — establish the background, map the argument, work the record, analyse the connections, decide what to do. Every one comes back graded, sourced and exportable.
Don’t know which one you need? The Router reads a plain question and picks one; the Planner takes a goal and designs a linked sequence. Every completed scan opens onto its own follow-ups — ask it a question, re-check what has changed, red-team its judgments, or push a signal onto your watchboard.
And the Studio turns a set of policy scans into a planned, researched, edited report or book. Every format →
Open the policy workbench with a bill, a rule, an agency or a docket. What comes back is sourced to the text and mapped without a side.